Games and Playing Styles
Patrick
why I've been lukewarm to Euro-style games:
"As far as generalities can be made about such a huge and diverse group
of games, German games are usually designed as a vehicle to underpin a
social gathering, rather than to play as an end in themselves, as
wargaming titles and classic strategy games like chess and go often
are. Despite this, many titles (especially the strategically heavier
ones) are enthusiastically played by 'gamers' as a hobby, but the
publishers are for the most part aiming their products at 'everyman'
social play."
Aha! "A vehicle to underpin a social gathering." They're certainly
good for that, and I've had a few successful social gatherings
underpinned by German-style games. But I was an avid gamer for years
before this type of game burst into popularity, and to me the social
gathering was always incidental.
Indeed, I've always seen games "as an end in themselves." And I spent
a couple decades addicted to board wargames.
But to me, "classic strategy games like chess and go" are very
different than wargames--or can be, depending on the player's approach.
My attraction to wargames, I suppose, is very much like many people's
attraction to role-playing games. I was after the imaginative
immersion, not brain-straining strategy.
Stepping back and looking at all this, it seems we have at least three
kinds of game here: (1) social games, (2) heavily themed games of
imaginative immersion, and (3) games that are absorbing to the
intellect. Of course there's probably lots of overlap; I'm not saying
these categories are mutually exclusive. But if these three kinds of
game exist, maybe there are also at least three strong motivations for
playing games.
To help distinguish between types (2) and (3) above, consider the
following blurb, which I posted to a computer-gaming list earlier
today:
"When I first find a game I like, I'm delighted with all the cool
things I get to do, and I think I'll be playing this game forever; but
after a while it becomes clear that I *can't* do all those cool things
and still be successful. In order to win, I have to limit myself to a
narrow set of efficient moves. The moment I wander off and start doing
stuff just for the fun of it, my chances of winning take a nose dive.
And I do like to win, so all of a sudden I find that the game I was
originally so delighted with is not all that delightful after all; it
has become more work than play."
Here, I was talking about single-player games, where it's just me
playing a game against the computer. So obviously there's no social
gathering involved. That immediately excludes games of type (1) above.
Then my little blurb goes on to discuss one of the things that tends
to spoil a game for me: namely, the intellectual challenge--the need
for efficiency--getting in the way of my "imaginative immersion."
Unfortunately, I think that happens in all games. You'd think I'd have
learned by now, but I still naively delve into a new game expecting it
to be just a fun vehicle for imaginative play; and I'm always
disillusioned at some point, when it turns out to be another mental
exercise.
Not totally disillusioned, however, because I do like mental exercise
as well. It's just that I'd prefer it take a back seat to the
"imaginative immersion" aspect of game playing.
Anyhow, I just thought I'd post this and see if anybody else can relate
to any of it. Maybe I'm just an oddball when it comes to game playing.
--Patrick
Rick Jones
> I just came across this blurb in the Wikipedia, and it seems to explain
> why I've been lukewarm to Euro-style games:
>
> "As far as generalities can be made about such a huge and diverse group
> of games, German games are usually designed as a vehicle to underpin a
> social gathering, rather than to play as an end in themselves, as
> wargaming titles and classic strategy games like chess and go often
> are. Despite this, many titles (especially the strategically heavier
> ones) are enthusiastically played by 'gamers' as a hobby, but the
> publishers are for the most part aiming their products at 'everyman'
> social play."
I believe my dissatisfaction with most Euro games stems from the
lack of a cohesive, rational connection between the mechanics and the
theme. It seems to me that the Euro designers sit around in a haze
inspired by a spoiled peanut butter and rancid potato chips, inventing
the most nonsensical, convoluted mechanics imaginable, then shoehorn a
totally unrelated theme on top of those mechanics. The end result is
less than satisfactory in 90+% of the cases.
I'll take the closely related mechanics and themes of most American
games nearly any day. Merchant Of Venus makes sense, with its theme of
exploration and trade, and mechanics that support the idea. Silverton
and the Empire Builder series make sense, with mechanics that mesh
closely with the idea of cargo hauling on railroads. Hell, even Robo
Rally, with its various faults, is superior in this regard to 98% of the
Euro games, and more fun to play too, even when you don't get the cards
you need to reach the next check point.
--
Rick Jones
Remove the Extra Dot to e-mail me
Idaho - It's not the end of the world, but you can see it from
there.
Lars Wagner Hansen
news:12ed37c...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> I believe my dissatisfaction with most Euro games stems from the lack
> of a cohesive, rational connection between the mechanics and the theme. It
> seems to me that the Euro designers sit around in a haze inspired by a
> spoiled peanut butter and rancid potato chips, inventing the most
> nonsensical, convoluted mechanics imaginable, then shoehorn a totally
> unrelated theme on top of those mechanics. The end result is less than
> satisfactory in 90+% of the cases.
People in Europe genreally don't eat peanut butter, so you assumption must
be wrong.
Lars
Patrick
> Merchant Of Venus makes sense, with its theme of
Ironically, IIRC MoV started out as a game about 17th-century spice
trading. The original theme changed some time before publication.
--Patrick
Ophidian
Not too ironic, considering that the basic trade mechanic would
work just as well in a spice trade game.
Unlike the random mechanics a German game might graft a spice
trade setting on to...
--
Perhaps the greatest evil of the American people is apathy!
But who cares?
Kevin J. Maroney
wrote:
> I'll take the closely related mechanics and themes of most American
>games nearly any day. Merchant Of Venus makes sense, with its theme of
>exploration and trade, and mechanics that support the idea.
Which is rather amazing, considering that when Richard Hamblein
invented it, it was a game about spice trading in the Indian Ocean and
the "space" theme was pasted on by Avalon Hill.
--
Kevin J. Maroney | k...@panix.com | www.maroney.org
Games are my entire waking life.
Games for Sale: updated 4 July 2004 <http://www.maroney.org/kevin/games-for-sale.html>
Greg Aleknevicus
wrote:
>On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 23:00:32 -0500, Rick Jones <rtj...@extra.ev1.net>
>wrote:
>> I'll take the closely related mechanics and themes of most American
>>games nearly any day. Merchant Of Venus makes sense, with its theme of
>>exploration and trade, and mechanics that support the idea.
>
>Which is rather amazing, considering that when Richard Hamblein
>invented it, it was a game about spice trading in the Indian Ocean and
>the "space" theme was pasted on by Avalon Hill.
Sure, although really, the theme of trading is pretty similar no
matter when the setting. More importantly, I think that if you strip
away all the thematic elements from Merchant of Venus it would still
be recognizable as a trading game.
-Greg Aleknevicus
gr...@pacificcoast.net
http://www.pacificcoast.net/~greg - Board games for sale
Christopher Dearlove
Patrick <patrick5...@yahoo.com> writes
Now that's a put down to a deeply flawed thesis.
--
Christopher Dearlove
Rick Jones
> On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 23:00:32 -0500, Rick Jones <rtj...@extra.ev1.net>
> wrote:
>> I'll take the closely related mechanics and themes of most American
>> games nearly any day. Merchant Of Venus makes sense, with its theme of
>> exploration and trade, and mechanics that support the idea.
>
> Which is rather amazing, considering that when Richard Hamblein
> invented it, it was a game about spice trading in the Indian Ocean and
> the "space" theme was pasted on by Avalon Hill.
Are you sure? The whole bit about navigating through The Cloud
doesn't seem like it would be relevant to an Earth-based trading game.
Unless it was originally the Bermuda Triangle?
--
Rick Jones
Remove the Extra Dot to e-mail me
You know you're getting old when a $4.00 bottle of wine is no
longer "pretty good stuff."
Rick Jones
It was a tongue-in-cheek comment. God only knows where the designers
come up with with some of the weird-assed mechanisms that get used in so
many of today's Euro games. Maybe it's because they have to keep
developing new ones to avoid patent and copyright infringement lawsuits.
--
Rick Jones
Remove the Extra Dot to e-mail me
If patience is a virtue and ignorance is bliss, you can have a
pretty good life if you're stupid and willing to wait.
Christopher Dearlove
<rtj...@extra.ev1.net> writes
>God only knows where the designers come up with with some of the
>weird-assed mechanisms that get used in so many of today's Euro games.
>Maybe it's because they have to keep developing new ones to avoid
>patent and copyright infringement lawsuits.
No. They come up with new ones because they are trying to create
something novel, for some combination of because they want to and
because people want something new. When designers don't put anything
new in you get reviews like "this is a perfectly sound game, but there's
nothing new in it". Copyright never comes into it, and the notorious
Magic
patent excepted, does anyone know any patents that are relevant? I've
never heard a designer mention them as a constraint.
--
Christopher Dearlove
Christopher Dearlove
<rtj...@extra.ev1.net> writes
> Are you sure? The whole bit about navigating through The Cloud
>doesn't seem like it would be relevant to an Earth-based trading game.
>Unless it was originally the Bermuda Triangle?
If you consider the East Indies in sailing ships, with not merely no
accurate maps, but no accurate knowledge of what should be mapped,
getting lost is pretty likely.
--
Christopher Dearlove
Greg Aleknevicus
wrote:
>Kevin J. Maroney wrote:
>> On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 23:00:32 -0500, Rick Jones <rtj...@extra.ev1.net>
>> wrote:
>>> I'll take the closely related mechanics and themes of most American
>>> games nearly any day. Merchant Of Venus makes sense, with its theme of
>>> exploration and trade, and mechanics that support the idea.
>>
>> Which is rather amazing, considering that when Richard Hamblein
>> invented it, it was a game about spice trading in the Indian Ocean and
>> the "space" theme was pasted on by Avalon Hill.
>
> Are you sure? The whole bit about navigating through The Cloud
>doesn't seem like it would be relevant to an Earth-based trading game.
>Unless it was originally the Bermuda Triangle?
The Designer's Notes state that "the game is loosely modeled on the
Spice Trade in the Far East during the 16th and 17th centuries."
Rick Pikul
You can add to that that they weren't even able to accurately plot where
they were. It wasn't until the 18th century that longitude could be
accurately measured, with the work of John Harrison.
--
Phoenix
Chris Malme
news:1155936906.1...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
> I just came across this blurb in the Wikipedia, and it seems to
> explain why I've been lukewarm to Euro-style games:
>
> "As far as generalities can be made about such a huge and diverse
> group of games, German games are usually designed as a vehicle to
> underpin a social gathering, rather than to play as an end in
> themselves, as wargaming titles and classic strategy games like chess
> and go often are. Despite this, many titles (especially the
> strategically heavier ones) are enthusiastically played by 'gamers' as
> a hobby, but the publishers are for the most part aiming their
> products at 'everyman' social play."
I am glad they added a qualifier - "As far as generalities can be made", as
that is an incredibly broad generalisation, in my opinion.
Also, I think it is fairly meaningless. I was playing board games,
including some lighter war games, and games such as Diplomacy and
Machiavelli, 20 years before I encountered German games. Right back then,
in our group, there was no question that the focus was on a social
gathering, having a good time, rather than the game as an end in itself. I
am well aware that other people were different, and for them the game was
all, but our group played to get together, not the other way around. Thus I
don't think you can really attribute this attitude just to German games.
Note that my comments are about the blurb you quoted, and not your own
comments, which I found interesting, but don't really have much to say
about them.
--
Chris
Minstrel's Hall of Filk - http://www.filklore.com/
Filklore Music Store - http://www.filklore.co.uk/
To contact me, please use form at http://www.filklore.com/contact.phtml
Peter Clinch
> "Patrick" <patrick5...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:1155936906.1...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
>
>> I just came across this blurb in the Wikipedia, and it seems to
>> explain why I've been lukewarm to Euro-style games:
>>
>> "As far as generalities can be made about such a huge and diverse
>> group of games, German games are usually designed as a vehicle to
>> underpin a social gathering, rather than to play as an end in
>> themselves, as wargaming titles and classic strategy games like chess
>> and go often are. Despite this, many titles (especially the
>> strategically heavier ones) are enthusiastically played by 'gamers' as
>> a hobby, but the publishers are for the most part aiming their
>> products at 'everyman' social play."
>
> I am glad they added a qualifier - "As far as generalities can be made", as
> that is an incredibly broad generalisation, in my opinion.
It is indeed: I wrote most of the above entry, and a bit like the
protracted arguments that go on over what the games should even be
/called/ you aren't going to get a 100% accurate short description that
satisfies everyone and takes all possible cases into account. That was
the best I could do, and I think it reflects the reality of the market
from the perspective of the German primary publishers. For example,
though Ravensburger created the Alea dicision to cater to a relative
niche they're still after good sales returns. While keen gamers may
have considerable respect for, say, Warforg, in terms of the total games
market Warfrog are not so much a niche as a (very high quality!) crevice...
> Also, I think it is fairly meaningless. I was playing board games,
> including some lighter war games, and games such as Diplomacy and
> Machiavelli, 20 years before I encountered German games. Right back then,
> in our group, there was no question that the focus was on a social
> gathering, having a good time, rather than the game as an end in itself. I
> am well aware that other people were different, and for them the game was
> all, but our group played to get together, not the other way around. Thus I
> don't think you can really attribute this attitude just to German games.
That's a fair comment, but what was meant was that the likes of SPI
would have existed without beer and pretzels, while the likes of Alea
wouldn't.
> Note that my comments are about the blurb you quoted, and not your own
> comments, which I found interesting, but don't really have much to say
> about them.
Fair comments, though if you can get together anything better without
lots of digressions, exceptional cases etc. then it's the Wikipedia so
it's easy enough to change them!
Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.c...@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
Peter Clinch
> I just came across this blurb in the Wikipedia, and it seems to explain
> why I've been lukewarm to Euro-style games:
<snip>
Most of that's my wiki entry. As with all wiki entires it's not cast in
stone and sealed with Sacred Truth. But I think it's a fair assessment
for the bulk of the genre (in as much as one can accurately pin down the
genre, which of course you can't really...), but others may beg to differ.
> Stepping back and looking at all this, it seems we have at least three
> kinds of game here: (1) social games, (2) heavily themed games of
> imaginative immersion, and (3) games that are absorbing to the
> intellect. Of course there's probably lots of overlap; I'm not saying
> these categories are mutually exclusive. But if these three kinds of
> game exist, maybe there are also at least three strong motivations for
> playing games.
Fair comment, I'd say. In my case, I'm attracted to all 3 you mention.
My collection centres mainly on Eurogames because I get more chance to
play them than anything else, the reason for that being the social
aspect (itself shaping the playing times and numbers of players etc.).
That there's a bit of mind-meat there as well definitely helps, I doubt
I could sustain a regular gathering just for playing Trivivial Pusuit
and Pictionary.
Christopher Dearlove
<p.j.c...@dundee.ac.uk> writes
>It is indeed: I wrote most of the above entry,
Well, I was predisposed to dislike the entry based on quotation and the
way this thread had gone. But I read it all, checked that a couple of
things that seemed surprising were true (like how many games in the
BGG top 100 were most cash wins, fewer than I expected) and decided
it was actually a pretty good article. Of course I could nitpick, but
I'm
not planning to make my first ever Wikipedia contribution to it.
--
Christopher Dearlove
Rick Jones
Yes, I'm aware of the source of the trading game idea. I'm just
curious about the claim that it was originally intended to be
historical, then was changed to the sci-fi theme.
--
Rick Jones
Remove the Extra Dot to e-mail me
You know you're getting old when you go to the drug store for
ibuprofen and antacid, not condoms and pregnancy tests.
Ophidian
> Greg Aleknevicus wrote:
>
>> The Designer's Notes state that "the game is loosely modeled on the
>> Spice Trade in the Far East during the 16th and 17th centuries."
>
> Yes, I'm aware of the source of the trading game idea. I'm just
> curious about the claim that it was originally intended to be
> historical, then was changed to the sci-fi theme.
I don't think the designer claimed it was just a new paint job.
IIRC, he was working on a "historical" game and the company asked
that it be changed.
Some of the mechanics may have been developed later.
Heck, some had to have been!
But much of the core of the game was probably in place before in
was switched to sci-fi.
Peter Clinch
> Well, I was predisposed to dislike the entry based on quotation and the
> way this thread had gone. But I read it all, checked that a couple of
> things that seemed surprising were true (like how many games in the
> BGG top 100 were most cash wins, fewer than I expected) and decided
> it was actually a pretty good article. Of course I could nitpick, but I'm
> not planning to make my first ever Wikipedia contribution to it.
Note that you can add (or remove) as little or as much as you like. My
contribution to the entry is mainly the emphasis on the social aspect,
for example (you can see how much the whole has been polished by looking
at the history tab, my contribution is quite a way back!) and is only a
small part of the whole.
If you fancy a less well travelled start then find a game you like
that's just mentioned as a stub and expand it into something useful.
The bulk of the TAMSK entry was one of my first Wiki contributions, for
example.
brett...@gmail.com
> of games, German games are usually designed as a vehicle to underpin a
> social gathering, rather than to play as an end in themselves, as
> wargaming titles and classic strategy games like chess and go often
> are.
Is the writer speaking as a designer of German games?
That statement is patently ridiculous (and pretentious). How precious,
it's a vehicle designed to underpin a social gathering. Feh. Sounds
more like American party games, to me. Pictionary is a game that was
designed to underpin a social gathering.
Any game where you have to pay more attention to the game than to the
side conversation is not a game designed to underpin a social
gathering.
I suppose if by "usually designed as a vehicle to underpin a social
gathering" the writer means, "usually designed for 3-5 players" it
could be an accurate assessment.
Brett
Peter Clinch
> Is the writer speaking as a designer of German games?
No.
> That statement is patently ridiculous (and pretentious). How precious,
> it's a vehicle designed to underpin a social gathering. Feh. Sounds
> more like American party games, to me. Pictionary is a game that was
> designed to underpin a social gathering.
It's the wiki. You do better if you don't like it, but though a lot of
work has been done on that entry by a lot of people, that's been there
for a while now so it seems there's a fair degree of agreement.
> Any game where you have to pay more attention to the game than to the
> side conversation is not a game designed to underpin a social
> gathering.
That statement is patently ridiculous (and pretentious)...
You might get a bit more context if you read the whole entry, of course.
Patrick
> > "As far as generalities can be made about such a huge and diverse group
> > of games, German games are usually designed as a vehicle to underpin a
> > social gathering, rather than to play as an end in themselves, as
> > wargaming titles and classic strategy games like chess and go often
> > are.
>
> Is the writer speaking as a designer of German games?
Why would that matter? IMO the designer's intent may be almost
irrelevant; what counts is how the game is actually played by people.
(For a literary parallel, see "The Intentional Fallacy" by Wimsatt &
Beardsley.)
> That statement is patently ridiculous (and pretentious). How precious,
> it's a vehicle designed to underpin a social gathering. Feh. Sounds
> more like American party games, to me. Pictionary is a game that was
> designed to underpin a social gathering.
IMO that depends on what one means by a social gathering. Very
broadly, it just means two or more people getting together and
interacting sociably. It does not necessarily imply a party.
> Any game where you have to pay more attention to the game than to the
> side conversation is not a game designed to underpin a social
> gathering.
In your opinion, perhaps--and depending on what you mean by "have to."
I believe we'd all agree that Settlers of Catan counts as a
German-style game. Do Settlers players *have* to pay more attention to
the game than to the side conversation? Probably not.
And again we come back to what we mean by "social gathering." It
doesn't necessarily mean a party; it just means two or more people
getting together and interacting sociably.
> I suppose if by "usually designed as a vehicle to underpin a social
> gathering" the writer means, "usually designed for 3-5 players" it
> could be an accurate assessment.
What the writer means is further explained in the writer's own
sentence, part of which is: "usually designed as a vehicle to underpin
a social gathering, rather than to play as an end in themselves, as
wargaming titles and classic strategy games like chess and go often
are."
Clearly, games are divided into two categories here: (1) those
designed to underpin a social gathering, and (2) those designed to be
played as an end in themselves--e.g., wargames and classic strategy
games.
Technically, both kinds of game usually require a social
gathering--i.e., a sociable meeting of two or more people.
Furthermore, both kinds of game are likely to be the centerpiece of the
social gathering--the main reason people are getting together; hence
the word "underpin."
The difference between the two kinds of game is that once people get
together and start playing a German-style game, the goal of the social
gathering is complete; people are there having fun playing the game.
But when people get together to play a hardcore wargame, or a game like
chess or go or bridge, the fact that they're together and having fun is
not enough; the wargame is perhaps simulating a famous battle that
everyone is interested in re-creating--the chess, go, or bridge game is
likely regarded as a serious test of mental acuity and playing skill,
and the players are intent on waging this "war of minds" and
determining a victor.
In short, "designed to underpin a social gathering" is NOT the same as
"designed as a lighthearted party game."
While I'm sure some groups do play Settlers or Lost Cities as serious
tournament games, somehow they just don't have the serious aura of
classic strategy games like chess or bridge. Indeed, chess and bridge
are intimidating to many casual players, and Settlers and Lost Cities
seem to be designed to make casual players feel at ease. Likewise,
hardcore wargames are intimidating to many casual players, whereas
German-style games generally are not.
So, I think the Wikipedia entry is valid. I agree that German-style
games are designed to underpin social gatherings--i.e., gatherings of
all kinds of people, from serious to casual gamers, both genders, all
ages, various educational levels, and so forth. In contrast, wargames
and classic strategy games appeal mainly to serious gamers, often more
to men than women, etc.; such games are usually "an end in themselves."
--Patrick
Christopher Dearlove
<p.j.c...@dundee.ac.uk> writes
>If you fancy a less well travelled start then find a game you like
>that's just mentioned as a stub and expand it into something useful.
>The bulk of the TAMSK entry was one of my first Wiki contributions, for
>example.
Well, I did give passing consideration to writing a Blue Moon entry
(as a playtester and the author of the FAQ list I have the knowledge,
I could even cannibalise from an article I once wrote). But there are
about 249 other things I ought to do first.
--
Christopher Dearlove
Ophidian
>
> And again we come back to what we mean by "social gathering." It
> doesn't necessarily mean a party; it just means two or more people
> getting together and interacting sociably.
That's way to broad a definition to have much useful meaning in
this context.
> Clearly, games are divided into two categories here: (1) those
> designed to underpin a social gathering, and (2) those designed to be
> played as an end in themselves--e.g., wargames and classic strategy
> games.
>
> Technically, both kinds of game usually require a social
> gathering--i.e., a sociable meeting of two or more people.
> Furthermore, both kinds of game are likely to be the centerpiece of the
> social gathering--the main reason people are getting together; hence
> the word "underpin."
Also, both kinds can and are played as an end in themsleves (or
neither really is).
> the chess, go, or bridge game is
> likely regarded as a serious test of mental acuity and playing skill,
> and the players are intent on waging this "war of minds" and
> determining a victor.
I know lots of people though who don't really care whether they win
or lose at those, they just like to play.
Similar to the people I know how play Settlers and such to win.
> In short, "designed to underpin a social gathering" is NOT the same as
> "designed as a lighthearted party game."
Right, the latter actually has a useful meaning. ;)
Patrick
>
> I know lots of people though who don't really care whether they win
> Similar to the people I know how [sic] play Settlers and such to win.
Are you saying you don't see any significant difference between
German-style games and classic strategy games like chess & go? Or
between German-style games and hardcore wargames?
Because the Wikipedia article indicates a significant difference, and
based on my (admittedly limited) experience, I agree that there's a
difference. So, if you don't see much difference, I'd be curious to
hear more about that.
More to the point, perhaps, how would you define German-style games if
you disagree with the Wikipedia definition I cited?
--Patrick
Christopher Dearlove
Patrick <patrick5...@yahoo.com> writes
>So, I think the Wikipedia entry is valid.
I think the article is valid, but I don't agree with your interpretation
of it,
which I think over-emphasises aspects of it and the game.
--
Christopher Dearlove
Ophidian
> Ophidian wrote:
>
>>I know lots of people though who don't really care whether they win
>>or lose at [games like chess, go, and bridge], they just like to play.
>
> Are you saying you don't see any significant difference between
> German-style games and classic strategy games like chess & go? Or
> between German-style games and hardcore wargames?
Nope.
I'm not saying that.
> Because the Wikipedia article indicates a significant difference, and
> based on my (admittedly limited) experience, I agree that there's a
> difference.
The are differences besides the pretty much
non-existant "social/serious" distinction.
> More to the point, perhaps, how would you define German-style games if
> you disagree with the Wikipedia definition I cited?
I don't know that I disagree with the rest of the definition.
The main characterization of "Euro" or "German" games seems to be
that they are more mentally involving than "party" games while less
so than "serious" games.
There are other trends too.
They tend towards high levels of abstraction, focus on mechanics
over simulation or "reality testing", less reliance on non-card
based random elements, a better level of manufacturing for
components, and a short playing time.
Peter Clinch
> I don't know that I disagree with the rest of the definition.
> The main characterization of "Euro" or "German" games seems to be
> that they are more mentally involving than "party" games while less
> so than "serious" games.
> There are other trends too.
> They tend towards high levels of abstraction, focus on mechanics
> over simulation or "reality testing", less reliance on non-card
> based random elements, a better level of manufacturing for
> components, and a short playing time.
All of which are /because/ they are designed as something you can
underpin a social gathering with. You can't play a 5 hour game with 20
pages of rules with the kinderen between having the evening meal and
them going to bed, the abstraction and mechanics over simulation is
linked back to the play time, and so on.
Don't forget a very significant chunk of the market for e.g. Settlers is
made up of German families playing it together as a pleasant and
stimulating diversion, and this accounts for far more sales than gamers
reading r.g.b and splitting hairs about definitions.
brett...@gmail.com
Patrick wrote:
> Are you saying you don't see any significant difference between
> German-style games and classic strategy games like chess & go? Or
> between German-style games and hardcore wargames?
>
Clearly there is some difference in most cases, but not in their social
applicability (with the probably exception of solo wargames and single
player puzzle games).
The main difference between German games and classic abstract strategy
games or wargames is that the former are generally designed to be
played with more than 2 players (with the exception of a sub-class of
Eurogames designed specifically for 2).
German games are regularly accused of being little more than abstract
manipulation of game pieces with a thin veneer of theme pasted on.
Through the Desert is often called multi-player Go with plastic camels.
Design concessions are made for multi-player functionality (has anyone
found the solution to the age-old problem of 4-player chess?). Once
you add the 3rd+ player to the mix, you lose the pure zero-sum result
matrix. German games are designed as multi-player strategy games and
marketed as family games. There's no magical "underpinning of social
gatherings" any more than any other game has, except in the 3+ player
aspect. That's just silly, IMO.
Brett
Patrick
> Ophidian wrote:
>
> > I don't know that I disagree with the rest of the definition.
> > The main characterization of "Euro" or "German" games seems to be
> > that they are more mentally involving than "party" games while less
> > so than "serious" games.
> > There are other trends too.
> > They tend towards high levels of abstraction, focus on mechanics
> > over simulation or "reality testing", less reliance on non-card
> > based random elements, a better level of manufacturing for
> > components, and a short playing time.
>
> All of which are /because/ they are designed as something you can
> underpin a social gathering with. You can't play a 5 hour game with 20
> pages of rules with the kinderen between having the evening meal and
> them going to bed, the abstraction and mechanics over simulation is
> linked back to the play time, and so on.
Well, that's just about what I was going to say. So all I need to say
now is, I'll second that.
--Patrick
Peter Clinch
> Clearly there is some difference in most cases, but not in their social
> applicability (with the probably exception of solo wargames and single
> player puzzle games).
So if I'm a fly on the wall in a German family household I'm just as
likely to see the residents playing a consim as Settlers? Come off it!
> The main difference between German games and classic abstract strategy
> games or wargames is that the former are generally designed to be
> played with more than 2 players (with the exception of a sub-class of
> Eurogames designed specifically for 2).
And social gatherings usually have more than 2 people. These facts are
probably connected!
> German games are regularly accused of being little more than abstract
> manipulation of game pieces with a thin veneer of theme pasted on.
> Through the Desert is often called multi-player Go with plastic camels.
And as anyone who plays both Go and DdW knows that's not doing either
game any favours. Both games are perfect information with no random
factors and territory is an aspect of scoring, but there the
similarities end. If you really think DdW is multi-player Go I'd be
intrigued to know how much Go you play...
Since the camels in DdW add nothing but amusing decoration to the game,
why would they be there if the game existed as an exercise to play for
its own sake? I suggest they're there in all their daft glory because
they make the game a bit friendlier in the context of a social gathering.
The point of thin themes is that thick themes make for games that are
typically too long and complex to underpin social gatherings, and
painted-on themes exist because people involved in playful interaction
often like decoration and themes provide a better basis in many cases
for much of the buying market for decoration than an abstract basis.
> Design concessions are made for multi-player functionality (has anyone
> found the solution to the age-old problem of 4-player chess?). Once
> you add the 3rd+ player to the mix, you lose the pure zero-sum result
> matrix. German games are designed as multi-player strategy games and
> marketed as family games. There's no magical "underpinning of social
> gatherings" any more than any other game has, except in the 3+ player
> aspect. That's just silly, IMO.
But if it were not so they would not be marketed (and widely bought and
played as) as family games. They are. Think of the SdJ, who the games
short-listed are aimed at, how it is easily the best known and most
prestigious award for German style games, and how many extra copies it
tends to get shifted to the target audience for the genre.
Patrick
> Patrick wrote:
> > Are you saying you don't see any significant difference between
> > German-style games and classic strategy games like chess & go? Or
> > between German-style games and hardcore wargames?
> >
>
> Clearly there is some difference in most cases, but not in their social
> applicability (with the probably exception of solo wargames and single
> player puzzle games).
>
> The main difference between German games and classic abstract strategy
> games or wargames is that the former are generally designed to be
> played with more than 2 players (with the exception of a sub-class of
> Eurogames designed specifically for 2).
I'm not at all sure I'd agree with that. I can certainly think of many
classic two-player strategy games (chess and go to name two). But I
can also think of some serious strategy games for more than two
players: bridge, pinochle, Chinese checkers, team-vs-team wargames,
multiplayer wargames like Third Reich, and so forth.
As far as I can tell, the number of players a game is designed for is
more or less trivial. It's important in a practical sense, but it's
meaningless as far as classifying games according to personal/social
preference (which is what I'm mainly interested in).
> German games are regularly accused of being little more than abstract
> manipulation of game pieces with a thin veneer of theme pasted on.
> Through the Desert is often called multi-player Go with plastic camels.
Cathedral can be compared to Go also; and Through the Desert might be
compared with Twixt. It seems natural for people to compare new games
with older ones they're familiar with. But that doesn't necessarily
put the games in the same category. People are noticing similar game
mechanics, perhaps--and yet the games being compared might have two
entirely different "feels."
I believe people, including game players, are mainly emotional
creatures. The "feel" of a game is what's going to make it appeal to
certain kinds of people, regardless of practical factors like game
mechanics or number of players.
For instance, I think it would be untrue for most people to say, If you
like Go, you'll like Through the Desert--or vice versa. In the first
place, a game's theme (even a thin veneer of theme) grabs many people,
while abstraction leaves them cold. Other people prefer abstraction
and are turned off by theme.
So, at this emotional human level, I'd say theme-vs-abstraction is a
hugely important factor in classifying games. And I think that's true
in spite of all the overlap (i.e., the many people who like or dislike
both kinds of game, as well as the many games with are only
semi-themed).
> Design concessions are made for multi-player functionality (has anyone
> found the solution to the age-old problem of 4-player chess?). Once
> you add the 3rd+ player to the mix, you lose the pure zero-sum result
> matrix. German games are designed as multi-player strategy games and
> marketed as family games. There's no magical "underpinning of social
> gatherings" any more than any other game has, except in the 3+ player
> aspect. That's just silly, IMO.
If they're "designed as *multi-player*" games and "marketed as *family*
games," it sounds to me like you're agreeing that they're designed (and
marketed) with the idea of underpinning social gatherings. What else
is "multi-player" or "family" if not a social gathering?
In contrast, although Advanced Third Reich is designed as a
multi-player game, it is certainly not marketed as a family game--and I
would tend to disagree if someone claimed A3R is intended to underpin a
social gathering. A3R is designed to appeal to a niche group of
gamers, and the game is so demanding that socializing is likely to be
overshadowed by serious involvement in the game itself.
Why are German games never as complex or involved or richly themed as
A3R? Because German games, almost by definition, must be suitable for
a mixed, casual group of people (e.g., a family) to gather around and
enjoy as a social event. A3R would pretty obviously be intimidating to
most families or casual groups.
I don't see why you call the underpinning of social gatherings
"magical." There's nothing magical about it; it's normal human
activity, and sometimes it centers around game playing.
Technically, all forms of game playing (except solitaire) involve
social gatherings. But the question is, which is more important to the
people involved--the game or the socializing? Are people using the
game as an excuse to get together socially, or are they getting
together socially just so they can play the game?
In the case of hardcore wargames, RPGs, and intense or complex strategy
games, I think most players get together for the sake of the game
itself, and socializing is incidental. In such groups, it's not
uncommon to hear someone say, "Shut up and play." The game is the
thing; socializing is optional.
At the other extreme are party games, where most players regard the
game as merely a vehicle to structure or enhance the social
get-together. These people would have gotten together anyway--for
dinner or conversation or whatever--and the game is incidental.
Somewhere in between are German-style games--and American-style family
games too, for that matter. They're designed to appeal to a broad
enough range of people that they'll facilitate family get-togethers.
Some players will be attracted by the theme, others by the intellectual
challenge, and others just by the opportunity to socialize in a fun,
structured way. In any case, the socializing can always be expected
(except in rare instances like championship Tigris & Euphrates
tournaments), because the games are designed to facilitate and
encourage that.
That's how I see it anyway, FWIW.
--Patrick
brett...@gmail.com
Peter Clinch wrote:
> brett...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Clearly there is some difference in most cases, but not in their social
> > applicability (with the probably exception of solo wargames and single
> > player puzzle games).
>
> So if I'm a fly on the wall in a German family household I'm just as
> likely to see the residents playing a consim as Settlers? Come off it!
>
And I suppose German family households are the only venue of social
gathering? A game with the family before bedtime is the only form of
social interaction?
Brett
Peter Clinch
> And I suppose German family households are the only venue of social
> gathering? A game with the family before bedtime is the only form of
> social interaction?
Don't be silly... however, it *is* where a significant % of the several
million copies of Die Siedler Von Catan ended up because it /is/ the
primary market for German games. To ignore such a point in an
encyclopaedia definition just because it isn't /your/ particular gaming
arena is missing the point of an encyclopaedia.
Of course there are exceptions, but the point is describing a whole and
diverse genre in a few short paragraphs for someone who isn't
necessarily an insider. And in that case an SdJ game and the target
it's primarily marketed to makes most sense to use as a canonical
baseline rather than page upon page of special cases that people on the
inside already know and will cause people doing some high-level browsing
to say "enough already" and not bother ever again.
Peter Huebner
brett...@gmail.com says...
>
> And I suppose German family households are the only venue of social
> gathering? A game with the family before bedtime is the only form of
> social interaction?
>
Not since the advent of the television turned the family circle [Familienkreis]
into a semicircle [Halbkreis], or so my friend Robert would have it (it really
does sound much more clever in German).
-Peter
--
=========================================
firstname dot lastname at gmail fullstop com
Derek Carver
sticking in my pennyworth!
Reverting to the original posting, statements about Eurogames being
invented purely to underpin a social gathering - as opposed to
'serious' games like Chess and Go - are like red rags to us boardgaming
bulls, but pausing for a moment's breath I had to realise what a sage
comment it was.
As probably among the ranks of the oldest members of the gaming
community I suppose I must have been boardgaming as long as anybody;
but looking back I find the statement to be true - an enjoyable
evening's gaming for us has always been part of a social event. We
have always finished with a supper or have sometimes started with one.
To my wife and me the choice of folk round the table is as important as
the game being played. I guess this might be due to boardgaming for my
generation most likely evolving from the card playing gatherings that
were such an important feature of our parents' generation - something
that died out with the arrival of TV.
In a later posting Rick (Jones) criticised many Eurogames - as opposed
to most American - as being misleadingly titled. In this he is right
and I often wonder who slaps these inaccurate titles onto games.
Having studied the history of the so-called 'fertile crescent' I
remember looking forward to the appearance of Euphrat und Tigris by
Reiner Knizia, billed as being one of his first 'big' games. Whilst
not a truly 'big' game it was certainly one of Reiner's 'bigger' games,
and an extremely good game it is too. But, disappointedly for me,
about the Tigris and Euphrates it certainly wasn't, and I'm sure could
be regarded as contravening the Trade Descriptions Act! But as a trend
American games try to stay true to their titles. It's a chicken and
egg situation. If the 'theme' comes first and inspires the inventor it
is then, I guess, justified - even though the inventing process might
might have reduced that theme to abstract terms. (My own "Showbiz" was
invented in response to a challenge to make a game about the pop-music
industry even though the bits used in its initial publication were all
completely abstract.) But most times a game starts off abstract and a
theme is then slapped onto it - abstract titles not being good selling
points apparently. This I too find interesting. This didn't seem an
obstical to the success of games in the past. Think of Monopoly, Risk,
Acquire, Scrabble; what sort of game does any of these titles convey?.
Whilst card games that swept the world enjoyed completely meaningless
titles like Bridge and Canasta!
Finally Chris queried how much the existence of patents hinder game
development. I have to agree that I too have never heard mention of
any such 'problem'. In fact, as I have mentioned elswhere, it seems
to be only the game's title that can run into difficulties. My "Blood
Royal" couldn't be published under its original title "Dynasties"
because it appeares that a TV series running at the time had bought the
word! Similarly my "Whirlwind" together with its two companion games
linked to the James Clavell novels had to be instantly discontinued
because of lack of copyright clearance of the titles with all of the
interested parties - or so I was informed.
Boyd Bottorff
> most American - as being misleadingly titled. In this he is right and I
> often wonder who slaps these inaccurate titles onto games.
> But as a trend American games try to stay true to their titles. It's a
> chicken and egg situation. If the 'theme' comes first and inspires the
> inventor it is then, I guess, justified - even though the inventing
> process might might have reduced that theme to abstract terms.
I suspect that's why I generally prefer "American" eurogames. It's
easier to explain a title if the rules actually fit the theme.
And, IMO, it's also easier to enjoy it. No idea why, but there it is.
Peter Clinch
> In a later posting Rick (Jones) criticised many Eurogames - as opposed
> to most American - as being misleadingly titled. In this he is right
> and I often wonder who slaps these inaccurate titles onto games.
Marketing departments, I suspect... (though to some degree I wouldn't be
surprised if some designers know that's what will be needed and provide
a theme veneer to start with.) Bottom line tends to associate with the,
ummm, bottom line, and if the marketing folks think Noughts and Crosses
will be a better seller with a space battle theme then that's quite
possibly what you'll get.
It's telling that the Big Players publish relatively few abstracts (by
name, at least). Even a range as highly regarded as GIPF ultimately got
abandoned by Schmidt Spiele
brett...@gmail.com
Peter Clinch wrote:
> brett...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > And I suppose German family households are the only venue of social
> > gathering? A game with the family before bedtime is the only form of
> > social interaction?
>
> Don't be silly... however, it *is* where a significant % of the several
> million copies of Die Siedler Von Catan ended up because it /is/ the
> primary market for German games. To ignore such a point in an
> encyclopaedia definition just because it isn't /your/ particular gaming
> arena is missing the point of an encyclopaedia.
The definition quite pointedly tries to demonstrate that Euro games are
only a vehicle for social interaction and, by contrast, other types of
games do not provide social interaction. It shows the author's narrow
definiton of "social interaction" and says more about the author's
perception of the players than it does about the games.
I also take exception to this:
"The games also highlight strategic decision making and planning,
eschewing dice and other components that add randomness."
Can you name more than 5 Euros that have no random elements? The vast
majority of Euro games have a significant random element.
Peter Clinch
> The definition quite pointedly tries to demonstrate that Euro games are
> only a vehicle for social interaction and, by contrast, other types of
> games do not provide social interaction.
By your reading, perhaps, but certainly not by mine (and I wrote it...),
and since it's been there since about February according to the history
file and the entry has otherwise been much fiddled with, I don't think
by a lot of other folks' either.
> It shows the author's narrow
> definiton of "social interaction" and says more about the author's
> perception of the players than it does about the games.
Or, it shows the reader's narrow view of the author's view!
> I also take exception to this:
>
> "The games also highlight strategic decision making and planning,
> eschewing dice and other components that add randomness."
IIRC that particular piece of work is nothing to do with me. But just
as with what I did say, it's the wiki and you can change it.
> Can you name more than 5 Euros that have no random elements? The vast
> majority of Euro games have a significant random element.
"eschewing" is not "avoiding at all costs". You generally have *some*
control, so while the resource rolls in Settlers are in the lap of the
gods you can at least choose to build in places where the dice are more
likely to do you favours than others. OTOH, in Monopoly. Mousetrap etc.
you have no ability to influence where you are at all. Maybe an
"excessive" in their before "randomness" would help? It's the wiki,
you're free to put it in. I wouldn't argue with it.
Mike from Pacru
news:1156339261.5...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Patrick wrote:
>> Are you saying you don't see any significant difference between
>> German-style games and classic strategy games like chess & go? Or
>> between German-style games and hardcore wargames?
>>
>
> Clearly there is some difference in most cases, but not in their social
> applicability (with the probably exception of solo wargames and single
> player puzzle games).
>
> The main difference between German games and classic abstract strategy
> games or wargames is that the former are generally designed to be
> played with more than 2 players (with the exception of a sub-class of
> Eurogames designed specifically for 2).
I'm in sympathy with the position that various writers on the thread have
adopted that generalisations are useful, and the an entry on the wiki can
always be modified so that is says "generally" rather than simply "are".
Congratulations to Peter for being bold enough to write it.
On that basis I'd add a caveat to the inference that some may take from the
statement above that all classic abstract strategy games aren't designed to
be played with more than 2. The abstract games in the set Pacru were
specifically designed so that the games can be played by 2,3 or 4. It also
seems to be the case that the lightest game Shacru tends to be more social
in that there is more opportunity for chat and less concentration needed,
whereas the deepest game, Pacru may well occur with little social
interaction until the game is over - so the social interaction is strongly
affected by the concentration requirement (the games are equally abstract).
> German games are regularly accused of being little more than abstract
> manipulation of game pieces with a thin veneer of theme pasted on.
> Through the Desert is often called multi-player Go with plastic camels.
Through the Desert does appear on some lists as an abstract game, so is
perhaps not the best example.
> Design concessions are made for multi-player functionality (has anyone
> found the solution to the age-old problem of 4-player chess?). Once
> you add the 3rd+ player to the mix, you lose the pure zero-sum result
> matrix.
Well .. that just hurts ;-)
Mike (from Pacru)
Christopher Dearlove
"brett...@gmail.com" <brett...@gmail.com> writes
>The definition quite pointedly tries to demonstrate that Euro games are
>only a vehicle for social interaction and, by contrast, other types of
>games do not provide social interaction.
That's not how I read the complete article. Extracts here haven't told
the
whole story. Had I felt it claimed either point above (with the absolute
"only" and "do not") I'd have criticised it strongly.
Straw man I think is the phrase.
--
Christopher Dearlove
Ophidian
>
> All of which are /because/ they are designed as something you can
> underpin a social gathering with.
That phrase leaves no distinction from "party" games.
If all you want is social interaction you design Pictionary,
not Settlers.
> Don't forget a very significant chunk of the market for e.g. Settlers is
> made up of German families playing it together as a pleasant and
> stimulating diversion, and this accounts for far more sales than gamers
> reading r.g.b and splitting hairs about definitions.
Gamers are among the best people to make these distinctions, and are
the ones they are most relevant to.
Lots of people buy toothbrushes, but I'd defer to those in the
dental industry the most right to deliniate the types that exist.
Ophidian
> Peter Clinch wrote:
>
>>brett...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Clearly there is some difference in most cases, but not in their social
>>>applicability (with the probably exception of solo wargames and single
>>>player puzzle games).
>>
>>So if I'm a fly on the wall in a German family household I'm just as
>>likely to see the residents playing a consim as Settlers? Come off it!
So what's the difference between Settlers and Payday?
Ophidian
> brett...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> The definition quite pointedly tries to demonstrate that Euro games are
>> only a vehicle for social interaction and, by contrast, other types of
>> games do not provide social interaction.
>
> By your reading, perhaps, but certainly not by mine (and I wrote it...),
Thus, you of course are biased. ;)
> and since it's been there since about February according to the history
> file and the entry has otherwise been much fiddled with, I don't think
> by a lot of other folks' either.
How long was it before somone thought it needed to be there in the first
place?
> IIRC that particular piece of work is nothing to do with me. But just
> as with what I did say, it's the wiki and you can change it.
And you can change it back.
Ability to change it is irrelevant to discussing wht it should say.
> "eschewing" is not "avoiding at all costs". You generally have *some*
> control, so while the resource rolls in Settlers are in the lap of the
> gods you can at least choose to build in places where the dice are more
> likely to do you favours than others. OTOH, in Monopoly. Mousetrap etc.
> you have no ability to influence where you are at all.
In Monopoly????
Come on!
> Maybe an
> "excessive" in their before "randomness" would help? It's the wiki,
> you're free to put it in. I wouldn't argue with it.
"Excessive" is too much of a judgement call.
"Tend towards less randomness" or such would be fine.
Ophidian
>
> In the case of hardcore wargames, RPGs, and intense or complex strategy
> games, I think most players get together for the sake of the game
> itself, and socializing is incidental. In such groups, it's not
> uncommon to hear someone say, "Shut up and play."
Variation on that are common in families and parties also.
Christopher Dearlove
<oNpEhMi...@cox.net> writes
>Peter Clinch wrote:
>
>> brett...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> The definition quite pointedly tries to demonstrate that Euro games
>>>are
>>> only a vehicle for social interaction and, by contrast, other types of
>>> games do not provide social interaction.
>> By your reading, perhaps, but certainly not by mine (and I wrote
>>it...),
>
>Thus, you of course are biased. ;)
All right then, by mine, and I'm not. (At least not in that sense, and
no
more than anyone else here in any other sense.)
--
Christopher Dearlove
Rich Shipley
> Patrick wrote:
>
>>
>> In the case of hardcore wargames, RPGs, and intense or complex strategy
>> games, I think most players get together for the sake of the game
>> itself, and socializing is incidental. In such groups, it's not
>> uncommon to hear someone say, "Shut up and play."
>
> Variation on that are common in families and parties also.
I find it more annoying when a light 1 1/2 hour game turns into 3 hours
of tedium because people aren't paying attention. In a more complex
game, at least I have things to think about.
People play the type of games that they and the people they are with
like. This underpinning social gathering stuff is self-defining BS.
Rich
Peter Clinch
> People play the type of games that they and the people they are with
> like. This underpinning social gathering stuff is self-defining BS.
The article is meant to be of use who aren't really aware what a
Eurogame is. Read in *whole* (not just the social gathering bit) it
should give an idea as to whether the genre is worth investigating to
find out if they /are/ the sort of games that might be liked.
Peter Clinch
> And you can change it back.
> Ability to change it is irrelevant to discussing wht it should say.
I haven't changed it back though, so clearly there is a degree of
agreement with it.
>> "eschewing" is not "avoiding at all costs". You generally have *some*
>> control, so while the resource rolls in Settlers are in the lap of the
>> gods you can at least choose to build in places where the dice are
>> more likely to do you favours than others. OTOH, in Monopoly.
>> Mousetrap etc. you have no ability to influence where you are at all.
>
> In Monopoly????
> Come on!
Yes, In Monopoly. I have 2 green properties, want the third. How can I
influence my chances of landing on it to buy in any way at all? I
can't, I have no influence on where my playing piece ends up (with the
/very/ small exception of deciding to pay my way out of jail or wait to
see if I roll doubles).
> "Excessive" is too much of a judgement call.
> "Tend towards less randomness" or such would be fine.
So put it in!
Peter Clinch
> That phrase leaves no distinction from "party" games.
> If all you want is social interaction you design Pictionary,
> not Settlers.
But the start of the wikki entry (which wasn't my work) /does/ make a
useful distinction, detailing the emphasis on decision making. Read the
whole thing.
David Allsopp
>Derek Carver wrote:
>
>> In a later posting Rick (Jones) criticised many Eurogames - as opposed
>> to most American - as being misleadingly titled. In this he is right
>> and I often wonder who slaps these inaccurate titles onto games.
>
>Marketing departments, I suspect... (though to some degree I wouldn't
>be surprised if some designers know that's what will be needed and
>provide a theme veneer to start with.) Bottom line tends to associate
>with the, ummm, bottom line, and if the marketing folks think Noughts
>and Crosses will be a better seller with a space battle theme then
>that's quite possibly what you'll get.
Indeed -- I was at Essen a few years ago when the dotcom boom was going
strong, and there were two games called "Online" previewing. I bought
one of them, a nice little sort-of-abstract tile placement game about
network ownership. You could paste a different theme on to the
mechanics, but it would require some thought.
The other one was a card game. I looked at it for about five minutes,
and thought "This is 'Mille Bornes' with a paintjob..."
--
David Allsopp Houston, Tranquillity Base here.
www.tranquillity-software.ltd.uk The Eagle has landed.
Peter Clinch
> I'm in sympathy with the position that various writers on the thread have
> adopted that generalisations are useful, and the an entry on the wiki can
> always be modified so that is says "generally" rather than simply "are".
> Congratulations to Peter for being bold enough to write it.
Note I didn't write the whole thing, but I was responsible for a greater
emphasis on the social aspect of the game design (look through the
history for who did what for full credit). There's far more to the
whole article than that (and I think some of the criticism it's getting
is from people who never bothered reading the whole thing).
David Parlett
<ri...@rtgames.com> writes
>People play the type of games that they and the people they are with
>like. This underpinning social gathering stuff is self-defining BS.
At last! The voice of sanity!
--
David Parlett
For books and games visit http://www.davidparlett.co.uk
Peter Clinch
> In message <JbudnQsokrTptnPZ...@comcast.com>, Rich Shipley
> <ri...@rtgames.com> writes
>
>> People play the type of games that they and the people they are with
>> like. This underpinning social gathering stuff is self-defining BS.
>
> At last! The voice of sanity!
Cut to: interior of games shop.
Customer: Hi, I'd like a game please?
Clerk: We have several thousand... any more pointers?
Customer: Well, I think I'll want to have one I like playing
Clerk: Excellent, now I know that I can heartily recommend X!
The above "sanity" is all very well if you know what you like. But
knowing what you like means already knowing about it, which means no
need to look it up in an encyclopedia!
Chris Malme
@individual.net:
> Yes, In Monopoly. I have 2 green properties, want the third. How can I
> influence my chances of landing on it to buy in any way at all? I
> can't, I have no influence on where my playing piece ends up (with the
> /very/ small exception of deciding to pay my way out of jail or wait to
> see if I roll doubles)
You can make sure you have enough cash (by not buying every property you
land on, whether you need it or not), so that if someone else lands on it,
and either doesn't want to (or can't afford to) buy it, you can outbid
everyone else in the auction.
If someone else buys it, you can try and get something they need, and
negotiate a trade. Or simply offer them lots of cash for it.
Monopoly is not a game I would normally choose to play. But if you are
playing by the rules, there can be a lot more player interaction than most
people credit the game for.
--
Chris
Minstrel's Hall of Filk - http://www.filklore.com/
Filklore Music Store - http://www.filklore.co.uk/
To contact me, please use form at http://www.filklore.com/contact.phtml
Chris Malme
@individual.net:
> Cut to: interior of games shop.
Customer: Hi, I'd like a game please?
Clerk: We have several thousand... any more pointers?
Customer: Well, I think I want one that will underpin a social gathering.
Clerk: Excellent, now I know that I can heartily recommend Monopoly!
Peter Clinch
> Peter Clinch <p.j.c...@dundee.ac.uk> wrote in news:4l7st4FlacsU1
> @individual.net:
>
>> Cut to: interior of games shop.
>
> Customer: Hi, I'd like a game please?
> Clerk: We have several thousand... any more pointers?
> Customer: Well, I think I want one that will underpin a social gathering.
> Clerk: Excellent, now I know that I can heartily recommend Monopoly!
Sounds like a dumb clerk to me. Are you /sure/ that will do what has
been requested? I know lots of people that strongly dislike Monopoly.
If you bother to read the wikki entry in question you'll note that there
is /far/ more there in pinning down the genre than the everyman social
play bit that Patrick quoted.
Peter Clinch
> Peter Clinch <p.j.c...@dundee.ac.uk> wrote in news:4l7ob5Fl3g3U1
> @individual.net:
>
>> Yes, In Monopoly. I have 2 green properties, want the third. How can I
>> influence my chances of landing on it to buy in any way at all? I
>> can't, I have no influence on where my playing piece ends up (with the
>> /very/ small exception of deciding to pay my way out of jail or wait to
>> see if I roll doubles)
>
> You can make sure you have enough cash (by not buying every property you
> land on, whether you need it or not), so that if someone else lands on it,
> and either doesn't want to (or can't afford to) buy it, you can outbid
> everyone else in the auction.
Like I said, I have no influence on where my playing piece ends up.
> Monopoly is not a game I would normally choose to play. But if you are
> playing by the rules, there can be a lot more player interaction than most
> people credit the game for.
Yes, but it is still the case that I have no influence on where my
playing piece ends up, which is a level of randomness in what goes on
that would be atypical of such a major mechanic in a typical Eurogame.
brett...@gmail.com
Well, there's the intial quote that stirred up this thread:
"German games are usually designed as a vehicle to underpin a social
gathering, rather than to play as an end in themselves, as wargaming
titles and classic strategy games like chess and go often are."
and
"publishers are for the most part aiming their products at "everyman"
social play."
"Bearing this social function in mind, designers have found various
characteristics tend to support that aspect well..."
"In keeping with their social orientation..."
"These games are intended to be part of a social gathering..."
All of which is intended to contrast German games from other types of
games. Perhaps my statement oversimplifies, but I disagree with the
thesis that German games can be distinguished from other games by their
socially-supportive nature or their ability to "underpin a social
gathering."
Brett
Peter Clinch
<snip comments on social play>
> All of which is intended to contrast German games from other types of
> games. Perhaps my statement oversimplifies, but I disagree with the
> thesis that German games can be distinguished from other games by their
> socially-supportive nature or their ability to "underpin a social
> gathering."
As Christopher suggested, if you read the whole thing it makes matters
quite a bit clearer.
Yes, the thing about social play is meant to differentiate from other
games, but specifically other games that might also "highlight strategic
decision making and planning" and/or "feature simple rules, attractive
components, modest length and a tangible theme". Read at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_style_game for other qualifiers.
The social aspect (with a noted relevance to adults and older children
that's there too) is just one of several points meant to be taken together.
Taking the social aspect on its own you will indeed be left with a whole
pile of holes, but Patrick quoted the social point alone, I guess,
because that's the bit that he feels leaves him dry with Eurogames (or
rather the relative lightness that's a direct result of it). Taking the
"strategic decision making and planning" alone similarly fails to do the
job (or Advanced 3rd Reich is a Eurgame), but that it isn't enough on
its own doesn't mean it doesn't warrant any mention at all.
Ophidian
> Ophidian wrote:
>
>> That phrase leaves no distinction from "party" games.
>> If all you want is social interaction you design Pictionary,
>> not Settlers.
>
> But the start of the wikki entry (which wasn't my work) /does/ make a
> useful distinction, detailing the emphasis on decision making. Read the
> whole thing.
I would have were there a link in this thread. ;)
Without that I'm just going by what gets said here.
But considering the number and range of games that "emphasize"
decision making, I don't see that as a qualifier that makes the
"social" comment any more relevant or accurate.
Ophidian
> Ophidian wrote:
>
>>> "eschewing" is not "avoiding at all costs". You generally have
>>> *some* control, so while the resource rolls in Settlers are in the
>>> lap of the gods you can at least choose to build in places where the
>>> dice are more likely to do you favours than others. OTOH, in
>>> Monopoly. Mousetrap etc. you have no ability to influence where you
>>> are at all.
>>
>> In Monopoly????
>> Come on!
>
> Yes, In Monopoly. I have 2 green properties, want the third. How can I
> influence my chances of landing on it to buy in any way at all? I
> can't, I have no influence on where my playing piece ends up (with the
> /very/ small exception of deciding to pay my way out of jail or wait to
> see if I roll doubles).
I didn't realize you were referring merely to board position.
Ophidian
> Chris Malme wrote:
>
>> Peter Clinch <p.j.c...@dundee.ac.uk> wrote in news:4l7st4FlacsU1
>> @individual.net:
>>
>> Customer: Hi, I'd like a game please?
>> Clerk: We have several thousand... any more pointers?
>> Customer: Well, I think I want one that will underpin a social
>> gathering.
>> Clerk: Excellent, now I know that I can heartily recommend Monopoly!
>
> Sounds like a dumb clerk to me. Are you /sure/ that will do what has
> been requested? I know lots of people that strongly dislike Monopoly.
Fine, insert Fish, Poker, Trivial Pursuit, or Pictionary.
Why would anyone (non-German of course <g>) make the leap to Settlers
or Alhambra?
> If you bother to read the wikki entry in question you'll note that there
> is /far/ more there in pinning down the genre than the everyman social
> play bit that Patrick quoted.
The wording of that part is in question.
That other parts "narrow things down" doesn't change the accuracy
level of that statement.
Ophidian
>
> Note I didn't write the whole thing, but I was responsible for a greater
> emphasis on the social aspect of the game design (look through the
> history for who did what for full credit). There's far more to the
> whole article than that (and I think some of the criticism it's getting
> is from people who never bothered reading the whole thing).
Just read it.
The repeated implication is that the main focus of these games
is getting people together rather than actually playing the game
for itself.
Which I don't see as accurate on so many levels.
The entry is so riddled with this mindset that correcting it will
be more than a minor task; a near rewrite.
brett...@gmail.com
Peter Clinch wrote:
> brett...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> <snip comments on social play>
>
> > All of which is intended to contrast German games from other types of
> > games. Perhaps my statement oversimplifies, but I disagree with the
> > thesis that German games can be distinguished from other games by their
> > socially-supportive nature or their ability to "underpin a social
> > gathering."
>
> As Christopher suggested, if you read the whole thing it makes matters
> quite a bit clearer.
>
I did, actually, and the article isn't entirely unreasonable. It's
just that this is the primary message in the "Characteristics" section
and it is inaccurate.
Brett
Peter Clinch
> Fine, insert Fish, Poker, Trivial Pursuit, or Pictionary.
> Why would anyone (non-German of course <g>) make the leap to Settlers
> or Alhambra?
Oh lordy, how many more times does it need to be said that
"everyman social play" is only *one* of the aspects noted in the
article.
So if we have...
Customer: I'd like something that underpins a social event
That might be followed up with something like...
Clerk: what sort of weight of decision making do you want? A bit
of thought and planning, answering general knowledge questions,
just doing wacky stuff it says on cards?
(which itself could be qualified further, just along the same lines
as the games are qualified further in the wikki)
Rather than
Clerk: Oh, you'll want one of these German style games then.
So without more qualification, as provided in the wikki entry, you
can't make the jump, but the qualification *is* there.
> The wording of that part is in question.
> That other parts "narrow things down" doesn't change the accuracy
> level of that statement.
Oh for crying out loud, it's only a partial quote from a larger
description. It is not meant as a standalone description of what
makes a Eurogame, why do you persist in treating it as if it is?
I hadn't gone out of my way to provide a link because it's not
exactly *difficult* to find, but if you're really not up to it then
follow http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_style_game and read the
whole entry before commenting further on its faults!
Peter Clinch
> Just read it.
> The repeated implication is that the main focus of these games
> is getting people together rather than actually playing the game
> for itself.
Which is not unrealted to why so many games fail to manage half a
dozen plays a year, but are *still* considered worthwhile.
That the entry details the likes of strategic planning is an
indication that more input is required than, say, Trivial Pursuit,
so one is somewhere along a spectrum between, say, Advanced 3rd
Reich and Twister, but the fact that the main market is German
families underlines the fundamental point is playing together at
some level.
> Which I don't see as accurate on so many levels.
Not on all levels, but you can't have something that hits all the
bases in just a few paragraphs. So it goes for where the bulk of
the market goes, taking the main thrust from SdJ games and a family
audience.
People come to my house regularly to play *a game* with their
friends, not a /particular/ game, just any game, and with their
friends, not anyone up for a game of anything. Most of the ones I
have that are typically popular are Eurogames. It might not be
*your* usual setup but I think that's most typical. From what I
read of Essen there are far more Herr & Frau Schmidts and their
kinderen than there are dedicated gamers.
> The entry is so riddled with this mindset that correcting it will
> be more than a minor task; a near rewrite.
And since one of the main points is it should be easily digestible
and thus short (a bit like a Eurogame) then a rewrite shouldn't be
such a huge task. Though strangely other people here, including a
published designer and one of Reiner Knizia's playtesters, seem to
think it's not too bad.
Peter Clinch
> I did, actually, and the article isn't entirely unreasonable. It's
> just that this is the primary message in the "Characteristics" section
> and it is inaccurate.
Go and tell Ravensburger...
Ophidian
>
> Oh lordy, how many more times does it need to be said that "everyman
> social play" is only *one* of the aspects noted in the article.
Zero.
It's not a relevant comment.
Ivan Hanley
wanted to add my comments to the discussion.
Peter Clinch wrote:
: People come to my house regularly to play *a game* with their
: friends, not a /particular/ game, just any game, and with their
: friends, not anyone up for a game of anything. Most of the ones I
: have that are typically popular are Eurogames. It might not be
: *your* usual setup but I think that's most typical.<snip>
German gaming for me is about social gatherings; playing Euro's with
people I enjoy being around. It's the people who make that games and
who drive or destroy my enjoyment of them and playing and winning take
a back seat to that. I really don't care if I win or lose (though of
course I try to win) as long as the banter is good. I don't care what
Euro games we play and I don't game specifically to play X regularly.
If I want to play a game and learn it intimately then I play something
like a Formula De season, every week. And then I care about winning,
and I care about the rules, and the game, and which hallion blocked me
in the last corner last week. But then I'm not playing socially.
Often times turns are taken in silence, arguments break out, sometimes
heated. The other players are my enemy and I'm exhilerated, and
challenged and I get a kick out of winning but this is not a social
experience. It is not a typical German game. You can really beat on
the other players and they can beat on you. No way would I say that
such a game could be used to underpin a social gathering. Yet most
German games fit that description well. Play X, win/lose, then move
on. All with plenty of fun, chat, social interchange and no hard
feelings.
Ivan.
Ophidian
> brett...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> I did, actually, and the article isn't entirely unreasonable. It's
>> just that this is the primary message in the "Characteristics" section
>> and it is inaccurate.
>
> Go and tell Ravensburger...
Yeah, I'm sure their marketing department will listen to us... ;)
Ophidian
>
> German gaming for me is about social gatherings; playing Euro's with
> people I enjoy being around. It's the people who make that games and
> who drive or destroy my enjoyment of them and playing and winning take
> a back seat to that. I really don't care if I win or lose (though of
> course I try to win) as long as the banter is good. I don't care what
> Euro games we play and I don't game specifically to play X regularly.
Understood.
I'm just maintaining that the same attitude applies to
Pictionary, Trivial pursuit, lighter card games.
It's not a distinguishing characteristic of Eurogames.
> Often times turns are taken in silence, arguments break out, sometimes
> heated.
I usually see that as occurring in games with complex rules, or
ones with lots of backstabbing and/or bluffing.
Eurogames don't include the former, but an include the latter.
> The other players are my enemy and I'm exhilerated, and
> challenged and I get a kick out of winning but this is not a social
> experience.
The other players aren't the "enemy" in Settlers or Ticket to Ride?
Players don't try to cut each otehr off?
> Play X, win/lose, then move
> on.
I see that as an aspect of then short game lengths.
Short game lengths also help limit the hard feelings, as there is
less time invested so less feeling that it was "all for nothing",
and more chance of a "oh well, I'll get them next time" attitude.
> All with plenty of fun, chat, social interchange and no hard
> feelings.
Heh, we do those with anything from Uno up to World in Flames. ;)
Ivan Hanley
: Ivan Hanley wrote:
:: German gaming for me is about social gatherings; playing Euro's
with
:: people I enjoy being around. It's the people who make that games
and
:: who drive or destroy my enjoyment of them and playing and winning
:: take a back seat to that. I really don't care if I win or lose
:: (though of course I try to win) as long as the banter is good. I
:: don't care what Euro games we play and I don't game specifically to
:: play X regularly.
:
: Understood.
: I'm just maintaining that the same attitude applies to
: Pictionary, Trivial pursuit, lighter card games.
: It's not a distinguishing characteristic of Eurogames.
I think it does distinguish Euro games from most other non-Euro board
games. Crucially I agree with you that Pictionary say and probably
most party games share these characteristics with Euro games. So in
essence I think that Euro games and party games have the same
function - to underpin a social gathering. I would definitely
disagree with you on Trivial Pursuit for example since the very nature
of this is to show off your superior knowledge and every game I've
ever played has been played to win at all costs (and runied the
atmosphere at the social gathering in the process). Regarding light
card games, if you are referencing things like Rook or UNO, etc then I
think they've a lot in common with many German card games. I would
therefore agree that they could also be used to underpin a social
gathering because they are so similar.
:: Often times turns are taken in silence, arguments break out,
:: sometimes heated.
:
: I usually see that as occurring in games with complex rules, or
: ones with lots of backstabbing and/or bluffing.
: Eurogames don't include the former, but an include the latter.
True they do include bluffing but what I was trying to get across was
that the reason Euro games don't have arguments etc is because of the
function of the game. If German games were all about the games then
you would definitely be focusing on winning. Party games also have a
similar function.
:: The other players are my enemy and I'm exhilerated, and
:: challenged and I get a kick out of winning but this is not a social
:: experience.
:
: The other players aren't the "enemy" in Settlers or Ticket to Ride?
: Players don't try to cut each otehr off?
Definitely not. Blocking for the sake of blocking can be very costly
in those games and often it is not the best course of action. Of
course stealing the longest road is a reason to cut a player's path
but I would never whip out my black book and add a player to it for
doing that, for example :). The lack of true take-that mechanics is
one of the reasons I agree these games are great for social play. In
contrast games like Formula De (and most non-German board games) are
not - I'm going to block your route through every corner if I can just
to try and damage your car (and chances of winning) and that's going
to annoy the crap out of you, and you might get angry, or add me to
your black book, or call me a hallion, or ..... but you'd do the same
to me because you want to win at all costs.
:: Play X, win/lose, then move
:: on.
:
: I see that as an aspect of then short game lengths.
: Short game lengths also help limit the hard feelings, as there is
: less time invested so less feeling that it was "all for nothing",
: and more chance of a "oh well, I'll get them next time" attitude.
Exactly so the fact that German board games are shorter than most
non-German board games distinguishes them. I'd argue that the other
characteristics (little luck, no elimination, etc) distinguishes Euros
from most non-German games and these aspects when taken as the
Euro-game 'package' make them perfect for social gatherings.
:: All with plenty of fun, chat, social interchange and no hard
:: feelings.
:
: Heh, we do those with anything from Uno up to World in Flames. ;)
Again I think this could be a crucial difference between us. I also
don't see the average German family having a laugh and a joke over
World in Flames.
Finally I feel that just because some non-German games share a
characteristic with Euros this does not impact upon the fact that Euro
games are used to underpin a social gathering. You wrote above that
you feel party games do this too and I agree with you. Euro and party
games share this same function however Euro games are not party games
because they have other characteristics which define them as Euros but
I don't feel you can adequately describe Euro games without a
reference to the fact that they underpin a social gathering.
Ivan.
Patrick
> David Parlett wrote:
> > In message <JbudnQsokrTptnPZ...@comcast.com>, Rich Shipley
> > <ri...@rtgames.com> writes
> >
> >> People play the type of games that they and the people they are with
> >> like. This underpinning social gathering stuff is self-defining BS.
> >
> > At last! The voice of sanity!
>
> Cut to: interior of games shop.
>
> Customer: Hi, I'd like a game please?
> Clerk: We have several thousand... any more pointers?
> Customer: Well, I think I'll want to have one I like playing
> Clerk: Excellent, now I know that I can heartily recommend X!
>
> The above "sanity" is all very well if you know what you like. But
> knowing what you like means already knowing about it, which means no
> need to look it up in an encyclopedia!
FWIW, I see two different things being discussed in this thread--games
and people. And if we could sort out those two sub-topics, I suspect
there'd be more agreement.
The Wikipedia entry attempts to tell people what a German-style game
is--just to distinguish them from other kinds of games and provide
information that the reader can use for any purpose he likes.
But when I started this thread, I was mainly talking about
people--myself in particular, if the truth be known, though I'm always
curious about other people's game-playing styles and preferences too.
So, I took part of the Wikipedia entry and turned it to my purpose by
saying, "Aha! So that's why I've never taken such a huge liking to
Eurogames; I'm not that kind of gamer." In the article, I recognized
something that matched my personal experience with Eurogames--i.e.,
that they seem to be designed for purposes other than the "imaginative
immersion" I often mainly look for in games.
Since I have a mind that loves to categorize everything, that led me to
wondering (once again) if gamers fall into groups based on their
preferences--and if so, what characterizes each of those groups.
A parallel example: In "Official Rules of Card Games" (long published
by the U.S. Playing Card Company), right at the front of the book,
there's a classified listing of card games to help people choose a game
they might like. The categories, IIRC, are Hilarious, Social, and
Serious (with further divisions based on number of players). I've
always enjoyed that classification and found it useful. I know I'm not
going to play Sheepshead or Contract Bridge with casual, just-for-fun
players. Nor is a serious player likely to often be thrilled by a game
of Crazy Eights. Each game has a unique feel to it, and each is best
suited for a particular situation. Furthermore, some card players are
notably serious, others remarkably lighthearted and sociable. I would
think the same is true among board gamers.
Of course moods change and circumstances change. I might enjoy a game
of Settlers tonight, then find it less fun tomorrow night or next week.
So no--you can't put people in boxes and label them as perpetually
lighthearted, serious, or whatever.
Games are more fixed, though, once they're designed and published.
They are what they are, and they're suitable for the social setting
they best fit into. Settlers is unlikely to satisfy a group of
hardcore wargamers, and Advanced Third Reich is probably not going to
be enjoyed by a German family on a Friday evening.
So, for the sake of sorting out all the thousands of games, and maybe
gaining insights into the psychology of game players, I think it's nice
to try to categorize games somehow. Indeed, "German-style games" (or
Eurogames) has been a widely accepted category for a number of years
now. And if it's a useful category, it must have defining
characteristics. The only question is what those characteristics are.
The Wikipedia article tries to cover them and tell what a Eurogame is.
But since games are played by people, the categorization is useful only
insofar as it effectively guides people in choosing the right game for
their personal preferences or social setting. Practical data like
number of players is useful, but that doesn't give a clue as to the
"feel" of the game--whether it's Hilarious, Social, or Serious (to use
the US Playing Card Company's terms).
When the Wikipedia entry mentions the bit about how German games are
designed mainly to underpin a social gathering, in my mind that puts
them more in the Social category: i.e., they're neither Hilarious
(like party games) nor Serious (like chess, bridge, and hardcore
wargames).
YMMV, of course. Different schemes of classification may work better
for you. Or you may be one of those people who hates categorization
and prefers to let distinctions remain blurry. To each his own. I'm
just trying to get a handle on games and playing styles to satisfy my
own interest.
--Patrick
Boyd Bottorff
They used to be. But detailed games sometimes come out with "bug fixes"
(IE, errata).
Some companies are worse than others for this.
Peter Clinch
> Understood.
> I'm just maintaining that the same attitude applies to
> Pictionary, Trivial pursuit, lighter card games.
> It's not a distinguishing characteristic of Eurogames.
On its own, quite so. Which is very specifically why the full
article does not use it as a sole distinguishing feature, but one
of many. One of the others is strategic planning, not present in
Pictionary, TP and lighter card games, for example, so using the
criteria from the article you can say none of those are German/Euro
games.
Think back to the "old" Avalon Hill, for years the #1 company gmers
would look to for their next fix. Note how stuff like Acquire was
a "Leisure Time Game" while Diplomacy was marketed quite
differently as a "Strategy Game". Despite its US origin Acquire is
in many ways one of the canonical Eurogames.
Peter Clinch
> Peter Clinch wrote:
>> Go and tell Ravensburger...
>
> Yeah, I'm sure their marketing department will listen to us... ;)
If they think there's money in it for them, sure they will. But
the fact is that committed gamers don't dominate the buying of
Eurogames, and the bulk of the market is a business and not a hobby.
Peter Clinch
> But since games are played by people, the categorization is useful only
> insofar as it effectively guides people in choosing the right game for
> their personal preferences or social setting. Practical data like
> number of players is useful, but that doesn't give a clue as to the
> "feel" of the game--whether it's Hilarious, Social, or Serious (to use
> the US Playing Card Company's terms).
>
> When the Wikipedia entry mentions the bit about how German games are
> designed mainly to underpin a social gathering, in my mind that puts
> them more in the Social category: i.e., they're neither Hilarious
> (like party games) nor Serious (like chess, bridge, and hardcore
> wargames).
Pretty much what I was trying to convey, so it's worked to at least
some extent.
Categorisations are rarely perfect (just what sort of music /does/
Jethro Tull play?), but if they help some of the people some of the
time more than they hinder then that's a Useful Thing and worth doing.
brett...@gmail.com
Peter Clinch wrote:
> Categorisations are rarely perfect (just what sort of music /does/
> Jethro Tull play?),
Heavy Metal, if their 1989 Grammy upset (beating Metallica's black
album) says anything. :)
Brett
brett...@gmail.com
>
> So if we have...
>
> Customer: I'd like something that underpins a social event
Clerk: huh?
Disregarding the unlikely occurrence of someone actually saying the
phrase, "I'd like something that underpins a social event,"
Customer: I'd like something that underpins a social event.
Clerk: Well, you're in luck; this is a game store.
Customer: Very funny, smartass. I'm looking for a game that is designed
to underpin a social gathering.
Clerk: OK. So, this social gathering.. is it a party?
Customer: Sort of.
Clerk: I see. Well, what sort of activities will be at this "sort of"
party?
Customer: I was hoping we'd play a game.
Clerk: Great! We have games. How many people will be at your "sort
of" party?
Customer: It's a social gathering.
Clerk: Ok, how many people are going to be at your social gathering?
Customer: Three to five.
Clerk: Well, that rules out Backgammon and World in Flames.
Customer: Huh?
Clerk: Never mind. Is this a "beer and pretzels" social gathering or
a "wine and cheese" social gathering?
Customer: Wine and cheese, definitely. There will be beer, too. And
pretzels.
Clerk: Great! I have just the game for you!
Customer: Really?
Clerk: No, not really.
Customer: Oh.
Clerk: Is your social gathering a "sitting around the living room"
social gathering or a "sitting around the table" social gathering?
Customer: I guess that depends on the game.
Clerk: Naturally. What sort of game did you have in mind?
Customer: One that really underpins a social gathering.
Clerk: Oh. Why didn't you say so earlier?
Customer: Huh?
Clerk: Ok, so, you've got three to five guests who like wine and
cheese and beer and pretzels and are not adverse to sitting around the
living room or sitting around the table.
Customer: Sounds about right.
Clerk: Will there be laughing and gaiety?
Customer: Laughter definitely, but I'd have to be pretty drunk before
any gaiety.
Clerk: ...
Customer: Oh, gaiety. Right. No, it's more of a serious social
gathering.
Clerk: You're guests won't mind learning some new concepts and rules
that are more complex than, say, Pictionary?
Customer: Right, I'm not looking for a party game. I'm looking for a
Clerk: Game that underpins a social gathering, yes, you said that
earlier.
Customer: Exactly.
Clerk: I have just the game for you.
Peter Clinch
:) indeed...
"Said She Was A Dancer? Hard Rock? Farm On The Freeway? Metal?
Well, hardly, chaps, but thanks for the accolade to the voting
members of the National Academy Of Recording Arts And Sciences who
voted for Tull in the (practically speaking) category of Best Nice
Bunch Of Guys Who Haven’t Won A Grammy Before."
- Ian Anderson, sleeve notes on the Crest Of A Knave remaster
Peter Clinch
> Clerk: huh?
> Disregarding the unlikely occurrence of someone actually saying the
> phrase, "I'd like something that underpins a social event,"
> Customer: I'd like something that underpins a social event.
<big snip>
All good fun, but rather illustrating you've Missed The Point
again, the point being very specifically that there's far more
about what makes a Eurogame a Eurogame in the wiki article than the
everyman social play aspect, and the only reason it seems to have
been quoted as a single point higher in the thread would be that
(as I read it) it's the single and particular point that Patrick
feels doesn't really float his boat about the genre.
brett...@gmail.com
Peter Clinch wrote:
> brett...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Clerk: huh?
>
> > Disregarding the unlikely occurrence of someone actually saying the
> > phrase, "I'd like something that underpins a social event,"
>
> > Customer: I'd like something that underpins a social event.
>
> <big snip>
>
> All good fun, but rather illustrating you've Missed The Point
> again
Right, I Get Your Point.
Perhaps you could define Social Gathering for me.
Peter Clinch
> Perhaps you could define Social Gathering for me.
Since it was contrasted with playing games seriously for the sake
of playing the games, the sort of game playing gathering that
doesn't do that was what was meant (though it's been taken out now,
and since the strongly related point of "everyman social play" is
left I have no plans to reinstate it)
If you want precise and exact definitions for absolutely everything
then you'll very often be disappointed, but with a bit of context
most people can see what's meant. The social gathering thing was
not really any harder to work out or less well pinned down than
various other characteristics mentioned in there, the only real
difference is you haven't decided to have a Bee In Your Bonnet
about them.
Solidad
>I just came across this blurb in the Wikipedia, and it seems to explain
>why I've been lukewarm to Euro-style games:
I know what you mean I just came across an article 'Tips to Transform Your
Scrabble Game' http://www.puzzle-place.net/scrabble-tips.htm and I was taken
aback by the analytical approach to the game.
Solidad
brett...@gmail.com
Peter Clinch wrote:
> brett...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Perhaps you could define Social Gathering for me.
>
> Since it was contrasted with playing games seriously for the sake
> of playing the games, the sort of game playing gathering that
> doesn't do that was what was meant (though it's been taken out now,
> and since the strongly related point of "everyman social play" is
> left I have no plans to reinstate it)
>
> If you want precise and exact definitions for absolutely everything
> then you'll very often be disappointed, but with a bit of context
> most people can see what's meant. The social gathering thing was
> not really any harder to work out or less well pinned down than
> various other characteristics mentioned in there, the only real
> difference is you haven't decided to have a Bee In Your Bonnet
> about them.
>
> Pete.
I like the new wording. It was the anti-social generalization of
wargames and strategy games that I objected to.
Peter Clinch
> I like the new wording. It was the anti-social generalization of
> wargames and strategy games that I objected to.
I agree it's better than mine was, so hats off to whoever did it :-)
Ophidian
> Peter Clinch wrote:
>
>>So if we have...
>>
>>Customer: I'd like something that underpins a social event
>
>
>
> Clerk: huh?
>
>
> Disregarding the unlikely occurrence of someone actually saying the
> phrase, "I'd like something that underpins a social event,"
>
Etc.
Brillaint.
If they ever reform the Pythons I nominate you! ;)
Ophidian
> brett...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> Clerk: huh?
>
>> Disregarding the unlikely occurrence of someone actually saying the
>> phrase, "I'd like something that underpins a social event,"
>
>> Customer: I'd like something that underpins a social event.
>
> All good fun, but rather illustrating you've Missed The Point again,
Pot, kettle, dark shade.
> the
> point being very specifically that there's far more about what makes a
> Eurogame a Eurogame in the wiki article than the everyman social play
> aspect,
No.
The article repeatedly attributes those _other_ aspects as
being "underpinned" by the constraints of a "socially" conscious design.
It possitively dwells on the idea that Eurogames are "designed
to underpin a social gathering".
> and the only reason it seems to have been quoted as a single
> point higher in the thread would be that (as I read it) it's the single
> and particular point that Patrick feels doesn't really float his boat
> about the genre.
Which would make sense were it accurate.
Since it isn't, I am left wondering what brings about his dislike of
the "genre".
My suspicion is the light and fluffy approach, but I can't say that
I've seen him dismiss Pictionary and Charades...
Ophidian
>
> I would definitely
> disagree with you on Trivial Pursuit for example since the very nature
> of this is to show off your superior knowledge and every game I've
> ever played has been played to win at all costs (and runied the
> atmosphere at the social gathering in the process).
I blame the players. ;)
> True they do include bluffing but what I was trying to get across was
> that the reason Euro games don't have arguments etc is because of the
> function of the game. If German games were all about the games then
> you would definitely be focusing on winning. Party games also have a
> similar function.
Hm, I think "focus on winning" comes from players not games.
Though it is stronger in two player games, long games, or complex games,
we still it in sports, Pictionary, light card games, even Charades...
> : The other players aren't the "enemy" in Settlers or Ticket to Ride?
> : Players don't try to cut each otehr off?
>
> Definitely not. Blocking for the sake of blocking can be very costly
> in those games and often it is not the best course of action.
In Settlers it can become necessary.
In TtR I've seen light blocking to be frequently effective.
> Exactly so the fact that German board games are shorter than most
> non-German board games distinguishes them. I'd argue that the other
> characteristics (little luck, no elimination, etc) distinguishes Euros
> from most non-German games and these aspects when taken as the
> Euro-game 'package' make them perfect for social gatherings.
Which brings us in a circle back to "what is a 'social gathering'?"
and why are other games not "social gatherings".
Eurogames ARE great for a subset of "social gatherings".
Party games are great for another.
American style board games fit another well.
Bridge or Poker are great fro others.
"Social gathering" in this context is virtually meaningless.
> :: All with plenty of fun, chat, social interchange and no hard
> :: feelings.
> :
> : Heh, we do those with anything from Uno up to World in Flames. ;)
>
> Again I think this could be a crucial difference between us. I also
> don't see the average German family having a laugh and a joke over
> World in Flames.
Of course not.
But I don't see the average American one doing it over Settlers,
though they may over Monopoly.
> Finally I feel that just because some non-German games share a
> characteristic with Euros this does not impact upon the fact that Euro
> games are used to underpin a social gathering.
My arguement us not that Euro's don't share characteristics with
other games, but that the characteristics they share with almost
ALL other games are useless to distinstinguish them from other games.
> You wrote above that
> you feel party games do this too and I agree with you. Euro and party
> games share this same function however Euro games are not party games
> because they have other characteristics which define them as Euros but
> I don't feel you can adequately describe Euro games without a
> reference to the fact that they underpin a social gathering.
I don't feel you can describe non-solitaire, non-professional games
without an assumed social gathering.
Ophidian
>
> On its own, quite so. Which is very specifically why the full article
> does not use it as a sole distinguishing feature, but one of many.
It uses it as the main one.
Peter Clinch
> No.
> The article repeatedly attributes those _other_ aspects as
> being "underpinned" by the constraints of a "socially" conscious design.
It never did anything of the sort.
> It possitively dwells on the idea that Eurogames are "designed
> to underpin a social gathering".
No more than it positively dwelt on the idea that they featured planning
and strategic thinking.
> Which would make sense were it accurate.
> Since it isn't, I am left wondering what brings about his dislike of
> the "genre".
> My suspicion is the light and fluffy approach, but I can't say that
> I've seen him dismiss Pictionary and Charades...
Because they don't feature the strategy and planning which the article
pointed out were features of Eurogames alongside the lightness which is
there because of the social aspect. My impression is Patrick wants
games with some planning meat, and he's sharp enough to know that party
games don't have it, and also sharp enough to realise that Eurugames are
cleary differentiated from party games in that respect by typically
having some.
Peter Clinch
> Which brings us in a circle back to "what is a 'social gathering'?"
> and why are other games not "social gatherings".
> Eurogames ARE great for a subset of "social gatherings".
> Party games are great for another.
> American style board games fit another well.
> Bridge or Poker are great fro others.
> "Social gathering" in this context is virtually meaningless.
"Social gathering" is meaningless with /no context at all/, with context
that can be taken from the article it seems to be clear to most people
except you.
> My arguement us not that Euro's don't share characteristics with
> other games, but that the characteristics they share with almost
> ALL other games are useless to distinstinguish them from other games.
Only if taken is isolation, taken as groups it seems to work. "Has big
ears" doesn't separate rabbits from elephants, "weighs over a tonne"
doesn't separate hippos from elephants, "has big ears and weighs over a
tonne" lets us tell elephants from both rabbits and hippos.
> I don't feel you can describe non-solitaire, non-professional games
> without an assumed social gathering.
If you're determined to split hairs about social gatherings and how
anything can be one to some extent, no, but with a bit of thought and
taking a clue from the context it really isn't hard unless you go out of
your way to make it hard.
I went to an ultrasound conference a couple of weeks ago, we had a nice
time and there was a lot of blether about all kinds of stuff over lunch
and coffee, so to some extent there was a "social gathering". Certainly
the social programme was about social gatherings. So was the conference
a "social gathering", because it was to some extent? No, it was a
serious scientific meeting. Nobody has suggested otherwise.
Ophidian
> Ophidian wrote:
>
>> No.
>> The article repeatedly attributes those _other_ aspects as
>> being "underpinned" by the constraints of a "socially" conscious design.
>
> It never did anything of the sort.
The version I read just a few days ago certainly did.
It's been changed since.
The new vesrion is MUCH superior as it gets across the important and
accurate point of what you are going for without implying an
innaccurate and derogatory point.
It was down to the point where only one comment stood out as
eggregious, and I changed that line; let's see if anyone objects. ;)
It does still need the "strategic thought" aspect reinserted though.
I'll leave that for a better writer...
>> It possitively dwells on the idea that Eurogames are "designed
>> to underpin a social gathering".
>
> No more than it positively dwelt on the idea that they featured planning
> and strategic thinking.
The word count for "social" far exceeded the combined word count
of "planning" and "strategy).
(Or forms thereof.)
Ophidian
>
> "Social gathering" is meaningless with /no context at all/, with context
> that can be taken from the article it seems to be clear to most people
> except you.
For values of "most" meaning "50% of those who choose to comment in
this thread".
>> My arguement us not that Euro's don't share characteristics with
>> other games, but that the characteristics they share with almost
>> ALL other games are useless to distinstinguish them from other games.
>
> Only if taken is isolation, taken as groups it seems to work. "Has big
> ears" doesn't separate rabbits from elephants, "weighs over a tonne"
> doesn't separate hippos from elephants, "has big ears and weighs over a
> tonne" lets us tell elephants from both rabbits and hippos.
Better analogy:
Elephants have large feet and large ears.
>> I don't feel you can describe non-solitaire, non-professional games
>> without an assumed social gathering.
>
> If you're determined to split hairs about social gatherings and how
> anything can be one to some extent, no, but with a bit of thought and
> taking a clue from the context it really isn't hard unless you go out of
> your way to make it hard.
"Balls are designed for games.
They can be round."
Now, how does bowling differ from baseball?
> I went to an ultrasound conference a couple of weeks ago, we had a nice
> time and there was a lot of blether about all kinds of stuff over lunch
> and coffee, so to some extent there was a "social gathering". Certainly
> the social programme was about social gatherings. So was the conference
> a "social gathering", because it was to some extent? No, it was a
> serious scientific meeting. Nobody has suggested otherwise.
What was lunch?
And what underpinned it?
Christopher Dearlove
"brett...@gmail.com" <brett...@gmail.com> writes
>
>Christopher Dearlove wrote:
>> In message <1156424279.0...@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
>> "brett...@gmail.com" <brett...@gmail.com> writes
>> >The definition quite pointedly tries to demonstrate that Euro games are
>> >only a vehicle for social interaction and, by contrast, other types of
^^^^
>> >games do not provide social interaction.
^^^^^^^
>>
>> That's not how I read the complete article. Extracts here haven't told
>> the
>> whole story. Had I felt it claimed either point above (with the absolute
>> "only" and "do not") I'd have criticised it strongly.
>>
>> Straw man I think is the phrase.
>
>Well, there's the intial quote that stirred up this thread:
>
>"German games are usually designed as a vehicle to underpin a social
^^^^^^^^
>gathering, rather than to play as an end in themselves, as wargaming
>titles and classic strategy games like chess and go often are."
>
>and
>
>"publishers are for the most part aiming their products at "everyman"
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>social play."
>"Bearing this social function in mind, designers have found various
>characteristics tend to support that aspect well..."
^^^^^^^^
Spot the difference between your absolute statements, and the qualified
statements of the article?
>All of which is intended to contrast German games from other types of
>games. Perhaps my statement oversimplifies, but I disagree with the
Oversimplifies to the point where it's a misrepresentation.
>thesis that German games can be distinguished from other games by their
>socially-supportive nature or their ability to "underpin a social
>gathering."
And "distinguishing" is a straw man too.
--
Christopher Dearlove
Christopher Dearlove
<oNpEhMi...@cox.net> writes
>Zero.
>It's not a relevant comment.
It's not relevant to point out you've seized on part of an article and
are
making out the whole of it is that part?
--
Christopher Dearlove