Dog Eat Dog - Any thoughts?
Chris Keil
local hobby shops and it looked promising, but I've sworn off buying things
sight unseen anymore. The premis looked like the players were CEO's of
various corperations who were moving to destroy the enviroment through
wanton use of resources. It looked kinda neat.
Roger
with six people and it was fairly agonizing. The real problem was the amount of
downtime between turns and the lack of interaction with other players. Some
people were taking their turns and wandering off to watch the Bills game for 15
or 20 minutes before things came back around to them...and they didn't miss a
thing.
zo...@world.std.com wrote:
> In article <858hkb$d50$1...@nnrp02.primenet.com>, "Chris Keil"
> I played a six player game the other night. While it was "kinda neat", the
> "Monopoly-stye" randomness made it painful for some. As you move around
> the board you can randomly land on places that make it impossible for you
> to accomplish anything on your turn (i.e. preventing manufacturing or
> extracting resources or others). In the six player game this just seemed
> to make things take too long before you get anything done. Maybe it would
> be better with fewer players (I guess I am a little biased because I came
> in hopelessly last ; ) ). On the plus side I did kind of like the
> tounge-in-cheek theme of advancing the corporation while destroying the
> environment. Some mechanisms were pretty good like balancing between the
> quick gain and strip-mining you land versus slow growth with sustainable
> extraction.
>
> -->Paul
>
> --- an extremely clever signature goes here ----
Mark Jackson
a) Waste Mismanagement, Inc., is a great idea in theory but not in practice.
(This company 'recycles' smog into products, thereby extending the life of the
game.) I'd play 4-5 without it in play.
b) You have more control than you realize... careful planning and deal-making
can make a HUGE difference. (Esp. dealing with Corrupt Politicians and their powers.)
I like the game... it's a good solid 7 for 4-5 players in my book.
--
Let me explain....no, there is too much. Let me sum up.
THE PRINCESS BRIDE
Mark Jackson
Nashville, TN
zo...@world.std.com
Richard Dewsbery
price of products is too wide a spread when companies will only produce
10-15 items in a game. Next timne we play (IF there is a next time) we use
average dice (which may also help with the movement - another problem where
too large a spread of random numbers restricted the control players had).
Oh, and I agree that Waste Mismanagement should not be used if there are
fewer than 6 players. in our game, with 6, WM was able to clean up the
board every round!
Richard
Mark Jackson <game...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:3878090A...@bellsouth.net...
Michael T. Richter
news:858hkb$d50$1...@nnrp02.primenet.com...
> Just wondering if anyone has seen/played this game, I saw it at one
> of the local hobby shops and it looked promising, but I've sworn off
> buying things sight unseen anymore. The premis looked like the
> players were CEO's of various corperations who were moving to
> destroy the enviroment through wanton use of resources. It looked
> kinda neat.
My impression of it boiled down to "I paid how much for a Greenpeace rant?
I can get those for free by watching anything with Dr. Suzuki in it on CBC."
--
Michael T. Richter <m...@ottawa.com> http://www.igs.net/~mtr/
"get a life. its a plastic box with wires in it."
-- Nadia Mizner <nad...@onthenet.com.au> (in private correspondence)
Richard Heli
zo...@world.std.com wrote:
> In article <858hkb$d50$1...@nnrp02.primenet.com>, "Chris Keil"
> <cjk...@primenet.com> wrote:
>
> >Just wondering if anyone has seen/played this game, I saw it at one of the
> >local hobby shops and it looked promising, but I've sworn off buying things
> >sight unseen anymore.
Tried it once with 4 players and it seemed to pretty much play itself. I found
hardly any interesting choices to make. Perhaps I was just lucky and/or perhaps
it gets better by adding the other 2 players, who are significantly different in
"powers" than the first four.
richar...@hotmail.com
America. Why is it, at a rule, they are bound to produced games run
amok with randomness, and the old Parchesi method of dice rolls
governing movement on a track-like structure? Come up with a novel
game theme, and then slap it on the same old brain-dead game mechanics.
Think of most of the American games out there that have been produced.
Outside of abstract strategy games, all I recall is games where dice
govern movement. Even arguably the most creative American game design
company today "Cheap Ass Games", has games dominated by luck, as a
rule. I know wargames are a general exception to this rule.
I am curious what is it about American games that make them
so "braindead", where luck dominates the whole game?
- Richard Hutnik
In article <zosa1-08010...@10.0.2.15>,
zo...@world.std.com wrote:
> I played a six player game the other night. While it was "kinda
neat", the
> "Monopoly-stye" randomness made it painful for some. As you move
around
> the board you can randomly land on places that make it impossible for
you
> to accomplish anything on your turn (i.e. preventing manufacturing or
> extracting resources or others). In the six player game this just
seemed
> to make things take too long before you get anything done. Maybe it
would
> be better with fewer players (I guess I am a little biased because I
came
> in hopelessly last ; ) ). On the plus side I did kind of like the
> tounge-in-cheek theme of advancing the corporation while destroying
the
> environment. Some mechanisms were pretty good like balancing between
the
> quick gain and strip-mining you land versus slow growth with
sustainable
> extraction.
>
> -->Paul
>
> --- an extremely clever signature goes here ----
>
--
Visit DocReason's Strategy HQ for free games, reviews, and
support and opponent finding for obscure/orphan games at:
http://www.geocities.com/timessquare/fortress/7537/
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Glenn Kuntz
>I am curious what is it about American games that make them
>so "braindead", where luck dominates the whole game?
>
>- Richard Hutnik
I think the reason is 3-fold:
1. It's often easier/cheaper to modify an existing thing than
to develop/invent/design something entirely new & original.
2. On the flip side, I think most people are more comfortable
learning something with a bit a familiarity vs. something
completely different. This generally applies more to adults
than to kids.
3. Randomizers are fun. In some games, they are the only real
"action" taking place and/or the only factor of
unpredictability or uncertainty (YMMV). Also, randomizers are
the great equalizers. The image of "family game" with parents
& kids all playing a game together is great, but how many games
would Dad *always* win if there were no equalizing randomizers
to help? They often provide balance to an otherwise unbalanced
game.
--
The CROKINOLE Board
http://www.frontiernet.net/~crokinol
Stefanie Kethers
>
> richar...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> >I am curious what is it about American games that make them
> >so "braindead", where luck dominates the whole game?
> >
> >- Richard Hutnik
>
> I think the reason is 3-fold:
>
> 3. Randomizers are fun. In some games, they are the only real
> "action" taking place and/or the only factor of
> unpredictability or uncertainty (YMMV). Also, randomizers are
> the great equalizers. The image of "family game" with parents
> & kids all playing a game together is great, but how many games
> would Dad *always* win if there were no equalizing randomizers
> to help? They often provide balance to an otherwise unbalanced
> game.
>
Uh, "parents" equals "Dad"? That's a new one to me ;-)
Anyway, I think there's a big difference between games
where luck dominates the whole game, and games with some kind
of luck factor. I guess Richard was talking about the former,
while you were defending the latter.
Cheers,
Stefanie
Glenn Kuntz
>Glenn Kuntz wrote:
>>
>> richar...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>> >I am curious what is it about American games that make them
>> >so "braindead", where luck dominates the whole game?
>> >
>> >- Richard Hutnik
>>
>> I think the reason is 3-fold:
>>
>>[..]
>> 3. Randomizers are fun. In some games, they are the only real
>> "action" taking place and/or the only factor of
>> unpredictability or uncertainty (YMMV). Also, randomizers are
>> the great equalizers. The image of "family game" with parents
>> & kids all playing a game together is great, but how many games
>> would Dad *always* win if there were no equalizing randomizers
>> to help? They often provide balance to an otherwise unbalanced
>> game.
>>
>
>Uh, "parents" equals "Dad"? That's a new one to me ;-)
Parents equals Dad? No, I didn't say that. I was making a
general observation, and IME, in this culture, Dads are *more
often* the more aggressive competitors around the game table.
(If not, why aren't more gaming groups gender-balanced? But
lets not go there... ;-) This may be changing along with
other cultural trends, but the numbers still run toward Dad at
this point - no sleight on Moms was intended.
>
>Anyway, I think there's a big difference between games
>where luck dominates the whole game, and games with some kind
>of luck factor.
I agree with that entirely.
>I guess Richard was talking about the former,
>while you were defending the latter.
No, I was also talking about the former, and I was making an
observation - not defending anything. I'm not sure it makes
any difference anyway.
Geenius at Wrok
> I think below is a reason why I dislike most games produced in
> America. Why is it, at a rule, they are bound to produced games run
> amok with randomness, and the old Parchesi method of dice rolls
> governing movement on a track-like structure? Come up with a novel
> game theme, and then slap it on the same old brain-dead game mechanics.
> Think of most of the American games out there that have been produced.
Well, first off, most -new- games in America are of the party game genre.
In these games, the use of a board, pawns and dice -- when they're used at
all -- are more a sort of scorekeeping mechanism than they are central to
the game mechanics.
Most American mainstream games -- it sounds like these are the ones you're
mainly talking about -- have actually been around for quite a long time.
They predate most of the innovations in game mechanics that we've been
spoiled by lately. I'm inclined to think that the real problem isn't
"American overreliance on die-rolling as a game mechanic" but "lack of any
serious American game development effort."
> Outside of abstract strategy games, all I recall is games where dice
> govern movement. Even arguably the most creative American game design
> company today "Cheap Ass Games", has games dominated by luck, as a
> rule.
Yet if you look at Cheapass' most widely praised games -- Kill Dr. Lucky,
Lord of the Fries, Button Men, Falling and Brawl -- only one, Button Men,
is completely dice-centric, and in that game there's no movement for the
dice to govern. Lord of the Fries offers a choice between choosing menu
orders randomly or tactically, and the other three don't use dice at all.
When you get right down to it, if you remove all randomness -- from setup,
from movement, from events -- what you have is practically by definition
an abstract strategy game. I suppose a case could be made that certain
negotiation games such as Diplomacy are exceptions. But I know lots of
people who consider Diplomacy an abstract strategy game as well.
--
"I wish EVERY day could be a shearing festival!" -- The 10 Commandments
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
Keith Ammann is gee...@albany.net "I notice you have a cloud of doom.
Live with honor, endure with grace I must admit it makes you seem
www.albany.net/~geenius * Lun Yu 2:24 dangerous and sexy."
Geenius at Wrok
> Glenn Kuntz wrote:
>
> > 3. Randomizers are fun. In some games, they are the only real
> > "action" taking place and/or the only factor of
> > unpredictability or uncertainty (YMMV). Also, randomizers are
> > the great equalizers. The image of "family game" with parents
> > & kids all playing a game together is great, but how many games
> > would Dad *always* win if there were no equalizing randomizers
> > to help? They often provide balance to an otherwise unbalanced
> > game.
>
> Uh, "parents" equals "Dad"? That's a new one to me ;-)
He's talking about the American family game-playing model, in which Mom
says, "You folks have fun, I'll just watch."
richar...@hotmail.com
Geenius at Wrok <gee...@albany.net> wrote:
> Well, first off, most -new- games in America are of the party game
genre.
> In these games, the use of a board, pawns and dice -- when they're
used at
> all -- are more a sort of scorekeeping mechanism than they are central
to
> the game mechanics.
Well, actually, I discounted party games when I wrote earlier. I was
focusing on boardgames which depend on the components to make the game
happen. In these games, there seems to be a reliance upon dice governed
movement.
> Most American mainstream games -- it sounds like these are the ones
you're
> mainly talking about -- have actually been around for quite a long
time.
> They predate most of the innovations in game mechanics that we've been
> spoiled by lately. I'm inclined to think that the real problem isn't
> "American overreliance on die-rolling as a game mechanic" but "lack of
any
> serious American game development effort."
Yes, I am speaking about games you see at Toys R Us, Kay-Bee, etc...
heck, even hobby stores. I compare the likes of German games to
American stuff, and the American games are far more governed by luck.
The differece is so pronounced, that is why games from Germany get
lumped together in a single category, usually. There are exceptions of
course. What is it about the typical American designer that makes them
throw a big dose of luck into their mix of games?
Look over all the games on the Toys R Us shelf, and find games that
are considered "strategy" titles. Luck rampant in them also. Ever try
Sequence? I have tried this turkey (sorry to be so hard, but I can't
believe someone hyped this game up as being great to me). Lionheart?
Can you see ton of luck? Risk and Axis and Allies? Well, marginally
better, but come on! And in the hobby stores, you get more of the
same. Cheapass will be discussed below.
> Yet if you look at Cheapass' most widely praised games -- Kill Dr.
Lucky,
> Lord of the Fries, Button Men, Falling and Brawl -- only one, Button
Men,
> is completely dice-centric, and in that game there's no movement for
the
> dice to govern. Lord of the Fries offers a choice between choosing
menu
> orders randomly or tactically, and the other three don't use dice at
>all.
Yeah, look at them. Seriously tell me that luck doesn't play a large
roll in a person's success in them. My railing is not against the use
of dice, but the dominance of luck in titles.
> When you get right down to it, if you remove all randomness -- from
setup,
> from movement, from events -- what you have is practically by
definition
> an abstract strategy game. I suppose a case could be made that
certain
> negotiation games such as Diplomacy are exceptions. But I know lots
of
> people who consider Diplomacy an abstract strategy game as well.
I am not railing against luck in general. Just that American games
seem dominated by the luck element, for the most part. If it weren't
for German games, I wouldn't have know that things could be different.
It seems in the American mindset, you either have theme driven
luckfests, or sterile abstract strategy games. German games seem able
to give games heavily dominated by strategy and tactics but also some
chrome around them.
- Richard Hutnik
Pitt Crandlemire
>richar...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>>I am curious what is it about American games that make them
>>so "braindead", where luck dominates the whole game?
>>
>
>I think the reason is 3-fold:
>
>1. It's often easier/cheaper to modify an existing thing than
>to develop/invent/design something entirely new & original.
I'm sure that's reasonably accurate though certainly not very admirable. And,
FWIW, I don't buy the argument that it's fiscally responsible for the big US
game companies to continue to rehash old standards because they know they'll
sell. I'm not suggesting they bet the farm on a new game or mechanic but there
are any number of examples in US business where innovation sells and sells very
well. In the gaming industry, Rio Grande Games comes to mind, for example.
>2. On the flip side, I think most people are more comfortable
>learning something with a bit a familiarity vs. something
>completely different. This generally applies more to adults
>than to kids.
I strongly disagree with this. I realize that you're only describing what you
believe to be the reasons for the actions of others, Glenn, but I think this
argument, to the extent that it is valid, is particularly specious. I
regularly have the opportunity to introduce European style games with
interesting mechanics and themes to casual, formerly MB/PB only game players.
The reaction I get, almost without exception, is one of surprise, extreme
interest, and a desire to play more of the same. I frequently get comments
making disparaging comparisons to the "traditional" US fare available at TRU or
other such retail channels.
I think that the average US consumer who already has an interest in board or
card games for family and adults is more than prepared for innovation and
novelty. The don't demand it, unfortunatdly, beause most of them don't know
they have a choice.
>3. Randomizers are fun. In some games, they are the only real
>"action" taking place and/or the only factor of
>unpredictability or uncertainty (YMMV).
I'm not sure how accurate this is. I know that a lot of casual gamers of my
acquaintance don't seem to mind games with a high luck factor. Whether or not
that means they don't know any better or they would equate "luck" with
"randomness" is another matter.
>Also, randomizers are
>the great equalizers. The image of "family game" with parents
>& kids all playing a game together is great, but how many games
> would Dad *always* win if there were no equalizing randomizers
>to help? They often provide balance to an otherwise unbalanced
>game.
But there are so many much better ways! Start the lesser skilled players in a
more favorable position, give them easier to achieve victory conditions,
provide them with additional starting resources, etc. Mechanics of this nature
allow direct and fair competition between players of different skill levels
without introducing randomness. All that does is teach kids that games are no
fun and not serious entertainment because skill doesn't really matter.
-Pitt Crandlemire
pi...@syncon.com
kas...@acadia.net
> Think of most of the American games out there that have been produced.
> govern movement. Even arguably the most creative American game design
> company today "Cheap Ass Games", has games dominated by luck, as a
> rule.
It seems to me that this is true only if we are talking about
mass-market games produced by Hasbro subsidiaries.
If we think in really broad terms, as Richard suggests, then *most*
American games are designed and produced independently, by small game
publishers, and they cover such a broad range of types and themes and
gaming mechanisms that it's pretty hard to make sweeping general
statements.
Cheap Ass Games, which Richard mentions, is one example of an
innovative smaller company. But how about Columbia? Fantasy Flight?
Not to mention West End, Metagaming, Gallo Glass, Steve Jackson Games...
The list is endless.
The problem with the American game industry is probably similar to
the problem with American publishing, American music, American
filmmaking, and most other industries that involve creativity and
artistry. A small number of giant companies dominate the supply side of
the market. They produce and sell a certain type of product with an
easily quantifiable cost/earnings ratio, which is distributed through
narrow channels to retail outlets that are themselves owned by a tiny
number of huge companies, like Toys R Us.
Meanwhile, out there is the vast spaces of the U.S.A., countless
brilliant game designers/musicians/writers/filmmakers are creating
wonderful things that reach only a fraction of the potential audience,
because they are not being packaged and sold by the majors. Hardcore
fans of any given genre -- games, recordings, comix, you name it -- know
that you really have to dig to find the coolest stuff. Here on RGB
right now we've got lively discussions about Disk Wars, Kings & Things,
Swords & Sorcery, Monsters Ravage America, and other titles that don't
fit the mass-market "Ameritrash" mold. This doesn't make them any less
American.
--
Ich brauche nicht immer meiner eigenen Meinung zu sein.
I need not always be of my own opinion.
-- Heinrich Heine
Glenn Kuntz
>Glenn Kuntz <crok...@frontiernet.net> wrote:
>
>>richar...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>I am curious what is it about American games that make them
>>>so "braindead", where luck dominates the whole game?
>>>
>>
>>I think the reason is 3-fold:
>>
>>1. It's often easier/cheaper to modify an existing thing than
>>to develop/invent/design something entirely new & original.
>
>I'm sure that's reasonably accurate though certainly not very admirable. And,
>FWIW, I don't buy the argument that it's fiscally responsible for the big US
>game companies to continue to rehash old standards because they know they'll
>sell.
I agree it may not be admirable, but I'm not sure why you don't
think it's fiscally responsible for a game company to further
exploit a previous success(?)
How many collectors editions of Monopoly are out now?
How many 18XX games are there?
How many SoC expansions/variants are we now up to?
>I'm not suggesting they bet the farm on a new game or mechanic but there
>are any number of examples in US business where innovation sells and sells very
>well. In the gaming industry, Rio Grande Games comes to mind, for example.
No argument from me!
>
>>2. On the flip side, I think most people are more comfortable
>>learning something with a bit a familiarity vs. something
>>completely different. This generally applies more to adults
>>than to kids.
>
>I strongly disagree with this. I realize that you're only describing what you
>believe to be the reasons for the actions of others, Glenn, but I think this
>argument, to the extent that it is valid, is particularly specious.
You may be right. I base my observation on reactions of people
I teach games to, which for the most part, is the public at
large (rather than gamers/game enthusiasts.) I have a heck of
a time getting folks (again, for the most part - YMMV) to play
*anything* with a foreign sounding name or infamiliar
subject/theme, or that has a rule set larger than one page.
>I
>regularly have the opportunity to introduce European style games with
>interesting mechanics and themes to casual, formerly MB/PB only game players.
>The reaction I get, almost without exception, is one of surprise, extreme
>interest, and a desire to play more of the same.
I wish I could find your players! :-) I don't mean to say I
never find *any* interested folks (sorry if anyone got that
impression,) - I was speaking in generalities.
>I frequently get comments
>making disparaging comparisons to the "traditional" US fare available at TRU or
>other such retail channels.
Likewise.
>
>I think that the average US consumer who already has an interest in board or
>card games for family and adults is more than prepared for innovation and
>novelty.
This is interesting. Does John Q. Public (the average American
boardgame consumer) *have* an interest in board/card games, and
what is the extent of that interest?
As to the second part (are they more prepared for innovation &
novelty?) I still don't think so - I still think that most
folks are generally averse to change/innovation - but I'll keep
an open mind. (I would expect opinions/reactions on this group
to be quite different from those of folks out on the street.)
I would also expect folks' acceptance of new/innovative/novel
games to be commensurate with their level of interest in these
types of games, so yes, generally speaking, people who are into
games (gamers) are more likely to be intersted in new &
different games than non-gamers.
>The don't demand it, unfortunatdly, beause most of them don't know
>they have a choice.
I agree with this also.
>
>>3. Randomizers are fun. In some games, they are the only real
>>"action" taking place and/or the only factor of
>>unpredictability or uncertainty (YMMV).
>
>I'm not sure how accurate this is. I know that a lot of casual gamers of my
>acquaintance don't seem to mind games with a high luck factor. Whether or not
>that means they don't know any better or they would equate "luck" with
>"randomness" is another matter.
Well, admitedly, #3 was some of the kid in me getting out. How
many kids (or adult gamers, for that matter) have you seen make
a sacred ritual out of rolling dice? ;-) Rolling dice *is*
fun. So is drawing a card, spinning a tee-totum, or flipping a
coin. It's the excitement and anticipation of the imminent.
>
>>Also, randomizers are
>>the great equalizers. The image of "family game" with parents
>>& kids all playing a game together is great, but how many games
>> would Dad *always* win if there were no equalizing randomizers
>>to help? They often provide balance to an otherwise unbalanced
>>game.
>
>But there are so many much better ways! Start the lesser skilled players in a
>more favorable position, give them easier to achieve victory conditions,
>provide them with additional starting resources, etc.
Now you sound like me during the "never throw a game" thread.
:-)
>Mechanics of this nature
>allow direct and fair competition between players of different skill levels
>without introducing randomness. All that does is teach kids that games are no
>fun and not serious entertainment because skill doesn't really matter.
I agree, I agree! Well-designed, well balanced games don't
need to rely unnecessarily heavily on randomizers, but they can
be/all too often are (unfortunately) an easy fix.
>
>
>-Pitt Crandlemire
> pi...@syncon.com
Richard Heli
I got a lucky event such that I was able to "mine" both items that I
needed.
I then hired some extra workers and was producing a new item each turn
whereas most of the other players were producing something every other
turn. No nasty events came up that I could not deal with, usually
involving
hiring just a couple of temps, nor were there any politicians that could
hurt
me. I didn't spend any money on politicians either -- why should I
waste
money on them after all since I was leading. I was making money so fast
that it was difficult to hide it all from the tax man and eventually
won.
Geenius at Wrok
> In article <Pine.GSO.3.96.1000111104940.26862B-100000@merlin>,
> Geenius at Wrok <gee...@albany.net> wrote:
>
> > Yet if you look at Cheapass' most widely praised games -- Kill Dr. Lucky,
> > Lord of the Fries, Button Men, Falling and Brawl -- only one, Button Men,
> > is completely dice-centric, and in that game there's no movement for the
> > dice to govern. Lord of the Fries offers a choice between choosing menu
> > orders randomly or tactically, and the other three don't use dice at all.
>
> Yeah, look at them. Seriously tell me that luck doesn't play a large
> roll in a person's success in them. My railing is not against the use
> of dice, but the dominance of luck in titles.
And I'm saying that in all of those, luck is a factor, but it's not -the-
factor. A player with higher skill will still regularly, even if not
universally, beat the player with lower skill, even if the only real
difference in skill is whether you "get it" or not.
> > When you get right down to it, if you remove all randomness -- from setup,
> > from movement, from events -- what you have is practically by definition
> > an abstract strategy game. I suppose a case could be made that certain
> > negotiation games such as Diplomacy are exceptions. But I know lots of
> > people who consider Diplomacy an abstract strategy game as well.
>
> I am not railing against luck in general. Just that American games
> seem dominated by the luck element, for the most part. If it weren't
> for German games, I wouldn't have know that things could be different.
And I'm just saying that the reason for that isn't an American "mind-set"
but the fact that America just isn't doing very much to develop new game
mechanics, while Germany is doing a lot. If more Americans saw benefit
(read: dinero) in developing new games, I bet they would show just as much
creativity as the Germans. I just don't think the incentive is there in
the minds of most of the people who would be developing them.
What you have in America is a whole lot of thirsty horses that have no
idea where to find water and a market dominated by companies that have
profited handsomely by making delicious hay and see no reason to change
their strategy. Little by little, small game stores and game companies
are leading those horses to water ... but it's going to take a -lot- of
that before the market offers anything other than hay.
richar...@hotmail.com
Geenius at Wrok <gee...@albany.net> wrote:
> What you have in America is a whole lot of thirsty horses that have no
> idea where to find water and a market dominated by companies that have
> profited handsomely by making delicious hay and see no reason to
change
> their strategy. Little by little, small game stores and game
companies
> are leading those horses to water ... but it's going to take a -lot-
of
> that before the market offers anything other than hay.
Gee, I am reminded of a local hobby store near me that started stocking
German games because I requested them and bought some. The set of Rio
Grande stuff has grown.
On the getting people interested front, I was in the store today, and
some middle aged woman came in asking for Settlers of Catan there. I
asked her who she was buying for, and she said herself, because she
tried the game and liked it. I told here there were even better German
style games out there. So, I guess it is a matter of time. =)
Jeff Simons
think it's relevant here too.)
As someone who dislikes too much randomness in games (i.e., Monopoly,
Axis vs Allies, War in the Pacific, etc.), I am a little surprised by
some of the comments about Dog Eat Dog and the luck factor. Compare it
to Rail Baron. In Rail Baron, couple of bad rolls early in the game and
you're sitting around for hours waiting to lose. One of the reasons I
dislike Mississippi Queen and Settlers of Cataan is that I find bad die
rolls to be crippling.
Obviously, we have played Dog Eat Dog many times, with many different
groups of people. (We have been working on it since 1982!) I agree that
at first glance, or even second or third, it seems that die-rolls can
hurt your chances to win. But what we have discovered is that the game
is tremendously forgiving of bad die rolls, when you know the system
well enough to exploit it. And while this might make it a tougher entry
level game for some, it means that replay value is very high.
At one point, we were toying with the idea of using 1-3 dice for
movement, allowing players to choose the number of dice to use each
time. We even thought about letting them choose how much they wanted to
move entirely. (Admittedly, the board squares were a little different
then.) While seasoned gamers thrived with those rules, beginners and
mainstream gamers were totally lost.
There is a familiarity to dice rolling games where you move around the
board that seems to be necessary for mainstream acceptance. So we chose
not to buck the current, and instead to make the game more challenging
on the high end, in strategy and rules exploitation. I know this is a
pretty strong statement, but none of the games I have played in since
the final design (well over 100) were the same as any other. We have
put in so many checks, balances, punches and counter-punches that even
the same group of players, playing the same divisions, end up playing
each game differently.
When we demo the game and are there to show new players all the ins and
outs, they seem to uniformly love it. Some players grasp the nuances
instantly, and are stabbing their best friends or spouses in the back
before the first round is even done. Other players take longer to
figure it out, but by the last few turns are so good at blocking others,
using red tape cards to overturn advantages, and cutting deals that
exclude leaders that dark horse upset victories are frequent.
What we tried to create was a game that was inviting to newcomers, but
would be satisfying on a repeat basis to seasoned gamers.
Anyway, I just wanted to throw my two cents in.
--
Jeffrey Simons
President,
Q.E.D. Games, Inc.
Makers of Dog Eat Dog, Blue vs Gray, and STASH
"We're Game If You Are!"
richar...@hotmail.com
kas...@acadia.net wrote:
> It seems to me that this is true only if we are talking about
> mass-market games produced by Hasbro subsidiaries.
I think the premise I am claiming is most true in the main Hasbro
line of products. However, I think it may be true to a lesser extent in
other games. Maybe the American culture is more tolerant of luck in
their games that other nationalities.
> If we think in really broad terms, as Richard suggests, then
*most*
> American games are designed and produced independently, by small game
> publishers, and they cover such a broad range of types and themes and
> gaming mechanisms that it's pretty hard to make sweeping general
> statements.
Again, I say there are exceptions to the rule. But, German games, as
a rule, seem to have a wider variety of new game mechanics to them.
> Cheap Ass Games, which Richard mentions, is one example of an
> innovative smaller company.
They do have some innovation in themes. As far as being dominated by
luck, I would say that most of their games are. Then again, they are
meant to be quick filler games, so I won't knock them for that. I have
some of their games also, as filler games.
>But how about Columbia? Fantasy Flight?
Now, you are in the area of wargames. Wargames, by nature, are
their own beast.
> Not to mention West End, Metagaming, Gallo Glass, Steve Jackson
Games...
> The list is endless.
Well, leave out games that are wargamish by nature. How many low
complexity, tactically dominant games, with a theme, are produced by
American companies? Not too many. This is a reason why German games
have been popular. They fill the niche of being games you can spring on
casual gamers while holding the interest of hardcore gamers. It seems
that in addition to sometimes falling into the dominated by luck angle,
American games designers are likely to add more complexity to their
games to appeal to more hardcore gamers.
It is almost a case of things going to an extreme. Either you have
hardcore complex games on one side, or low complexity luckfests on the
other hand, by American game designers.
> The problem with the American game industry is probably similar to
> the problem with American publishing, American music, American
> filmmaking, and most other industries that involve creativity and
> artistry. A small number of giant companies dominate the supply side
of
> the market.
In actuality, it is more like one dominates, and that is Hasbro.
>They produce and sell a certain type of product with an
> easily quantifiable cost/earnings ratio, which is distributed through
> narrow channels to retail outlets that are themselves owned by a tiny
> number of huge companies, like Toys R Us.
I think the Toys R Us factor plays a role in this. I am curious to
see if Acquire ever appears in Toys R Us.
> Meanwhile, out there is the vast spaces of the U.S.A., countless
> brilliant game designers/musicians/writers/filmmakers are creating
> wonderful things that reach only a fraction of the potential audience,
> because they are not being packaged and sold by the majors.
That is true to some extent. The premise I am pondering is if the
American culture is more interested in having luck and familar game
mechanics in their games that other cultures. I think of many of the
potential game designers out there who think they have a cool idea, and
it is merely another "-opoly" game. Or "Risk, with a twist". Or the
next "Trivial Pursuit", etc... Think of the average game inventor in
America. What is s/he trying to hawk? Either a luckfest game, which is
a twist on what you get at Toys R Us, or an abstract strategy game.
This is the mindset, and the rule. Again, the "Ameritrash" mentality.
(Ameritrash being my variant on the term "Eurotrash" that gets thrown
around in some circles).
>Hardcore
> fans of any given genre -- games, recordings, comix, you name it --
know
> that you really have to dig to find the coolest stuff.
It seems the designers of hardcore games in America have the tendency
to make their games more and more complex, with more and more rules.
>Here on RGB
> right now we've got lively discussions about Disk Wars,
I can't comment on this one.
>Kings & Things,
Ya can't count games designed by the freak of nature Tom Wham =). I
do mean that in a nice way, by the way. Tom Wham's games are noted for
their luck element by the way.
> Swords & Sorcery,
Won't comment on that.
>Monsters Ravage America,
You don't remember the artwork, do you? :-P hehehe.
>and other titles that don't
> fit the mass-market "Ameritrash" mold. This doesn't make them any
> less American.
Well, perhaps...
I think, mulling over this discussion, there is a tendency for American
games to make situations more engaging/challenging/unpredictable for
players by either increasing the complexity of the rules game, or by
pumping up the luck element in the game. An interesting note is how a
good number of German games tend to avoid this. They are able to have
captivating play, without either falling into the trap of loading up on
rules, or by making the luck factor high.
Greg Fleischman
richar...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> I am curious what is it about American games that make them
> so "braindead", where luck dominates the whole game?
>
> - Richard Hutnik
>
>
I think the answer is simple (but my answer will be long!). In this
country, games are equated with toys with companies and consumers, and not
as a legitimate form of entertainment for older teens through adults.
Because of this impression, the audience they appeal to is only kids.
Factor in then that they must compete with the newest whiz-bang toys, and
there is no wonder the expense of nice materials and the involved
development needed to produce something appealing to all ages, or
individually to various ages, is not justifiable.
Assuming that companies like AbacusSpiele, Kosmos, etc., are profitable,
what is different about Europe that allows great development and quality
materials in games? The only thing I can think of is that games ARE a
legitimate form of entertainment there, on a par with books, movies, etc.
Here, ask someone if they would be interested in playing a game, and they
look at you like you asked them if they wanted to play with Mr. Potato
Head.
I haven't followed the thread about chess, but I think the overwhelming
following and coverage chess gets, and to a lesser extent other traditional
games like backgammon and go, gives these games a different aura. So, the
answer to the question above is that most American game companies promote
what American consumers want. And most of the late teenage through adult
consumers aren't interested in games. So instead of getting Settlers of
Catan, we get Loopin' Louie. Granted, there are a handful of great,
non-traditional adult games here, like Acquire. But I can understand how
there won't be many more until people see games as something more
sophisticated than a kids toy and worthy of the price equivalent to a
hardcover book.
And, finally, about Dog Eat Dog. I also wondered about this game after
seeing it in a games store. From the postings about this game, it seems
that it, like other adult-oriented games, can't seem to break away from
kids games mechanics. This is not to say that the degree of luck defines
the difference between adult and kids games. Rather it is how luck is used
by itself or blended with strategy. I still like the game Can't Stop,
which uses much luck. Monopoly is ok, but it is so disappointing to see
how many games having different themes wind up being just a Monopoly
knock-off. Maybe greater exposure over time to German games, with their
nicer components, unique themes and mechanics and challenging play, will
people be willing to pay the higher prices and accept that games can be
entertaining across all age groups.
Greg
Mark Jackson
>
> (I posted this in response to "Why all the bellyaching about luck" but I
> think it's relevant here too.)
> As someone who dislikes too much randomness in games (i.e., Monopoly,
> Axis vs Allies, War in the Pacific, etc.), I am a little surprised by
> some of the comments about Dog Eat Dog and the luck factor. Compare it
> to Rail Baron. In Rail Baron, couple of bad rolls early in the game and
> you're sitting around for hours waiting to lose. One of the reasons I
> dislike Mississippi Queen and Settlers of Cataan is that I find bad die
> rolls to be crippling.
Settlers I see... but MS Queen?! The only die roll is for which way the river goes!
> When we demo the game and are there to show new players all the ins and
> outs, they seem to uniformly love it. Some players grasp the nuances
> instantly, and are stabbing their best friends or spouses in the back
> before the first round is even done. Other players take longer to
> figure it out, but by the last few turns are so good at blocking others,
> using red tape cards to overturn advantages, and cutting deals that
> exclude leaders that dark horse upset victories are frequent.
I think part of the problem with this discussion is based on what different
people are looking for in a gaming experience - and/or what they expect.
Dog Eat Dog LOOKS like a Monopoly-track roll & move with a little trading
thrown on... but the trading/negotiating/messing around is only limited by the
rules & your imagination. By their own admission, the designers chose NOT to
give all the possible strategies in the rules to allow players to discover them.
I had a similar experience with a very different game, Medieval Merchant. Weak
reviews on r.g.b. kept me from purchasing MM... but then I had an opportunity
to play with Jay Tummelson (Rio Grande) teaching us the game and explaining
some strategy. It's become my favorite "rail" game.
> What we tried to create was a game that was inviting to newcomers, but
> would be satisfying on a repeat basis to seasoned gamers.
> Anyway, I just wanted to throw my two cents in.
Thanks, Jeff... it's nice to get to talk to the designer(s)!
Justin B. Green
the _board_game market): collectible card games; where 90% of the luck
comes as you're buying the darn things...or perhaps even before that: when
whatever factors came together in your life to enable you to throw money
away like it was toilet paper. CCG's TRULY put the "trash" in Ameritrash
(but Americans ain't the only ones buying them).
That said, I personally think a little more credit should be given to
Cheapass, QED, Steve Jackson, etc., and their more luck-based games. I
prefer "German" games myself, and play them most often, but when I play
one of those American games, it can be like a breath of fresh air. Yes,
they're lighter, but they also tend to have more character and humor
(which sometimes stem directly from the random factors). Plus, with dice,
a different kind of tension develops, stemming from the loss of control,
that can give a game a palpable narrative. (Man, I'm really talking out
my (cheap)ass now!)
Leaving America for the classics: Poker, backgammon, and bridge have
random factors at their cores that really give drama to games that most
people admit require plenty of "skill" to win consistently. Personally,
there's nothing in chess, go, or Tigris & Euphrates for that matter, that
compares to climaxes of calling your best friend's bluff with the straight
you drew into, or rolling that double 4 EXACTLY when you needed it.
-----------
One last tangent: when growing up, my mother and my friends' mothers were
much more reliable and cutthroat game opponents than the dads were. Yes,
the dads were more competitive, but it was usually limited to sports (or
work, of course). For the most part, they could care less about games,
and you'd consider yourself lucky if they bothered to learn the rules!
This pattern will probably be broken when my wife and I have a family,
however...
ASF
American game.
Christian Killoran
<richar...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:85f82s$vek$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> I think below is a reason why I dislike most games produced in
> America. Why is it, at a rule, they are bound to produced games run
> amok with randomness, and the old Parchesi method of dice rolls
> governing movement on a track-like structure? Come up with a novel
> game theme, and then slap it on the same old brain-dead game mechanics.
> Outside of abstract strategy games, all I recall is games where dice
> govern movement. Even arguably the most creative American game design
> company today "Cheap Ass Games", has games dominated by luck, as a
>
> so "braindead", where luck dominates the whole game?
>
> - Richard Hutnik
When I first read this post my jaw almost hit the keyboard! I've been a
gamer for about 25 years, playing American games almost exclusively until a
few years ago when I was exposed to some of the titles called "German" games
here on r.g.b. I instantly took a shine to many of these games because they
were different from what I was used to...but they certainly didn't strike me
as being less luck dependent - quite the opposite.
From where I sit, the American game scene has been divided into two very
different categories: "children's games" in which luck all but decide the
winners, and "serious games" (including but not limited to wargames) where
luck can be managed out of the picture. Just for fun, let me compare some
titles and you tell me which game is more luck dependent.
Ameritrash: Circus Maximus
Eurotrash: Formula De
Ameritrash: We the People
Eurotrash: Elfenlands (oops! Designer nationality!) how bout Bohnanza?
Ameritrash: Panzergruppe Guderian
Eurotrash: Tikal
Ameritrash: Gunslinger
Eurotrash: Ursuppe
Richard, the reason I found your comment so ironic is because I play the
European games when I want something light, fast, and lucky enough that
anybody can win. I'm glad they're around because they fill a niche that
American publishers can't or won't fill. But I sure don't consider them to
be the brain challenging pinnacle of gaming.
Geenius at Wrok
> In article <387B8B...@acadia.net>,
> kas...@acadia.net wrote:
>
> >They produce and sell a certain type of product with an
> > easily quantifiable cost/earnings ratio, which is distributed through
> > narrow channels to retail outlets that are themselves owned by a tiny
> > number of huge companies, like Toys R Us.
>
> I think the Toys R Us factor plays a role in this. I am curious to
> see if Acquire ever appears in Toys R Us.
Hasbro has already said it won't. The Avalon Hill line will be shopped to
specialty game stores, not the mass-market stores.
But then again, why should Toys 'R' Us sell it? Here we are complaining
about how the U.S. game industry treats games as if they were toys and
wishing it gave games full credit for being what they are. With that
mind-set, no one should expect to find games for sale in a -toy- store --
they should be looking for them in -game- stores. As long as the public
thinks "toy" when it hears "game" -- and consequently only shops for games
in toy stores -- the games that are produced for it will be nothing more
than toys. Yet another reason why we need not only a robust game industry
but a robust game -retail- industry.
> That is true to some extent. The premise I am pondering is if the
> American culture is more interested in having luck and familar game
> mechanics in their games that other cultures. I think of many of the
> potential game designers out there who think they have a cool idea, and
> it is merely another "-opoly" game. Or "Risk, with a twist". Or the
> next "Trivial Pursuit", etc...
A lot of people think the American public is very conservative and will
only buy something that seems familiar. To an extent, this is true.
However, it overlooks the fact that heavy advertising can make -anything-
seem familiar, whether it is or not. Politicians win elections that way
all the time. Give any game a Hasbro marketing budget (and the
distribution to back it up), and it will be a success.
Thomas C. Perconti
Geenius at Wrok <gee...@albany.net> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.3.96.1000111194957.4537E-100000@merlin...
> > kas...@acadia.net wrote:
> >
> > >They produce and sell a certain type of product with an
> > > easily quantifiable cost/earnings ratio, which is distributed through
> > > narrow channels to retail outlets that are themselves owned by a tiny
> > > number of huge companies, like Toys R Us.
> >
> > I think the Toys R Us factor plays a role in this. I am curious to
> > see if Acquire ever appears in Toys R Us.
>
> specialty game stores, not the mass-market stores.
>
> But then again, why should Toys 'R' Us sell it? Here we are complaining
> about how the U.S. game industry treats games as if they were toys and
> wishing it gave games full credit for being what they are. With that
> mind-set, no one should expect to find games for sale in a -toy- store --
> they should be looking for them in -game- stores. As long as the public
> thinks "toy" when it hears "game" -- and consequently only shops for games
> in toy stores -- the games that are produced for it will be nothing more
> than toys. Yet another reason why we need not only a robust game industry
> but a robust game -retail- industry.
Toys 'R' Us should sell games for the same reason they sell books, bicycles,
models, crafts, greeting cards, video games, mini stereo systems, and
diapers. I don't have any proof, but I have a gut feeling that there are some
"hidden agendas" at work that prevent the "more substantial" boardgames from
appearing on the shelves of TRU.
Wasn't MB's GameMasters series (overall) a successful line? I can remember
when these first came out they were flying off store shelves even though they
were easily the most expensive games in the store. I'm not convinced that
non-trivial games wouldn't sell in TRU. It's difficult to buy something when
it isn't on the self.
But I guess we'll never know for sure.
--
Tom Perconti (aka SpeedRacer: Lancelot of the Information Superhighway)
Horror e-Comic Demo: http://members.tripod.com/~Perconti/dawncomic.zip
The Unofficial Home Page of Cadaco's All-Star Baseball Game:
http://members.tripod.com/~Perconti/cadaco/
Julian
>dislike Mississippi Queen and Settlers of Cataan is that I find bad die
>rolls to be crippling.
Is there a die in MQ? Or do you mean curve of the river? Not a greatly
significant problem, imo.
I accept the Settlers point which is why you need to place carefully.
--
Regards
Julian
Melbourne, Australia
Robert Chang
<fis...@p3.net> wrote:
> Agreed. Monopoly-style games suck. I personally will never buy another
> American game.
That has to be one of the dumbest absolute statements I've heard in a
while. Remain skeptical about US company releases? Sure. Never buy
another Monopoly variant? Definitely. But never buy a game made by a US
company? That's just setting yourself up to eat crow. You never know
where the next great game is going to come from.
-bob
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
= b...@soda.berkeley.edu = It is now pitch black. You are likely to =
= go...@uclink.berkeley.edu = be eaten by a grue. --Zork =
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Greg J. Schloesser
> A lot of people think the American public is very conservative and will
> only buy something that seems familiar. To an extent, this is true.
> However, it overlooks the fact that heavy advertising can make -anything-
> seem familiar, whether it is or not. Politicians win elections that way
> all the time. Give any game a Hasbro marketing budget (and the
> distribution to back it up), and it will be a success.
A great big AMEN to that!! I have been preaching this to whoever will listen
... proper marketing is the key. You can't expect to place an adult game on
the shelves of Toys R Us where it will get lost between the latest Pokemon
Monopoly and Toy Story 2 board games. Give adult board games their own
section and advertise, advertise, advertise them. They will sell.
Coincidentally, I have an article on the very same subject which will appear
on an upcoming issue of the Games Cafe.
--
Greg J. Schloesser
The Westbank Gamers: http://home.earthlink.net/~gschloesser/
Mik Svellov
Greg Fleischman wrote:
> Assuming that companies like AbacusSpiele, Kosmos, etc., are profitable,
> what is different about Europe that allows great development and quality
> materials in games?
Please note that Europe is *not* different to America in this respect. It is only in Germany that this special culture exsist.
Mik
Jeff Simons
Interestingly enough, our sales of Dog Eat Dog in Europe and Germany far
outpace our sales in America.
Also, I don't think anyone here has described the Dog Eat Dog game
mechanic, which has nothing to do with Monopoly and is not exactly a
"kid game mechanic."
In Dog Eat Dog, you must set up a production cycle, exploit variable
market conditions, and wheel and deal with other players in an
unstructured, clever-deals-are-rewarded sort of way. The variably paced
degradation of the nature squares alone is an innovative concept.
I guess I'm getting a litle defensive, but in all honesty, it's painful
to watch a game that doesn't have the problems that are being described
slammed for having those problems.
Kevin J. Maroney
>Toys 'R' Us should sell games for the same reason they sell books, bicycles,
>models, crafts, greeting cards, video games, mini stereo systems, and
>diapers. I don't have any proof, but I have a gut feeling that there are some
>"hidden agendas" at work that prevent the "more substantial" boardgames from
>appearing on the shelves of TRU.
TRU *does* sell games. Every TRU I've been in has a games section;
there's a TRU on Long Island where the game section is larger than
some hobby shops I've been in.
TRU sells games for children. That should surprise no-one; TRU is a
store for *children's goods*. Every item they sell is geared towards a
market of children.
TRU has no interest in adult games for an adult audience.
--
Kevin J. Maroney | Crossover Technologies | kmar...@crossover.com
Games are my entire waking life.
Neil Carr
whole randomness issue in reference to Dog eat Dog. I think the game
is interesting and look forward to having my own copy of the game. I
just started to go into phenomenological mode on the nature of random
movement allowances. Being at work it's sometimes hard to properly
review what you've written to rgb when at any moment the boss may come
by to see what you are up to.
Neil Carr
Dallas MetroGamers
http://www.earthsea.com/metrogamers/
richar...@hotmail.com
Geenius at Wrok <gee...@albany.net> wrote:
> Hasbro has already said it won't. The Avalon Hill line will be
shopped to
> specialty game stores, not the mass-market stores.
>
> But then again, why should Toys 'R' Us sell it? Here we are
complaining
> about how the U.S. game industry treats games as if they were toys and
> wishing it gave games full credit for being what they are. With that
> mind-set, no one should expect to find games for sale in a -toy- store
I think a reason why Hasbro bought Avalon Hill was to gain THE most
well known name in the hobby store game business. Hasbro had been
interested in pursuing this niche market for awhile, because it makes
money.
> they should be looking for them in -game- stores. As long as the
public
> thinks "toy" when it hears "game" -- and consequently only shops for
games
> in toy stores -- the games that are produced for it will be nothing
more
> than toys. Yet another reason why we need not only a robust game
industry
> but a robust game -retail- industry.
Maybe this is a reason for having the Avalon Hill brand. The brand
lets them release titles for more hardcore gamers, without people
instantly associating their games with being "stupid". Kind of the
reverse of what you spoke of. I think all that needs to take place to
help build a more robust gaming industry is for Hasbro to package a
catalog with more of their "hardcore" games in it, and put it in the
likes of Monopoly, etc...
> A lot of people think the American public is very conservative and
will
> only buy something that seems familiar. To an extent, this is true.
> However, it overlooks the fact that heavy advertising can make
-anything-
> seem familiar, whether it is or not. Politicians win elections that
way
> all the time. Give any game a Hasbro marketing budget (and the
> distribution to back it up), and it will be a success.
If you consider most games are purchased as gifts for other people,
then the familarity factor stands to be very true.
richar...@hotmail.com
Dog". I saw it in a local hobby store, and was curious about it. When
someone posted about the game being like Monopoly, I went into my whole
soapbox hatred of people making Monopoly clones with a twist (labelled
these games Ameritrash). I would like to get more information on your
game. I am always rooting for the American game makers to produce
interesting games.
- Richard Hutnik
In article <387D5979...@qedgames.com>,
Jeff Simons <jeffs...@qedgames.com> wrote:
> Greg:
> Interestingly enough, our sales of Dog Eat Dog in Europe and Germany
far
> outpace our sales in America.
> Also, I don't think anyone here has described the Dog Eat Dog game
> mechanic, which has nothing to do with Monopoly and is not exactly a
> "kid game mechanic."
> In Dog Eat Dog, you must set up a production cycle, exploit variable
> market conditions, and wheel and deal with other players in an
> unstructured, clever-deals-are-rewarded sort of way. The variably
paced
> degradation of the nature squares alone is an innovative concept.
> I guess I'm getting a litle defensive, but in all honesty, it's
painful
> to watch a game that doesn't have the problems that are being
described
> slammed for having those problems.
--
Richard Heli
"Kevin J. Maroney" wrote:
> "Thomas C. Perconti" <srac...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >Toys 'R' Us should sell games for the same reason they sell books, bicycles,
> >models, crafts, greeting cards, video games, mini stereo systems, and
> >diapers. I don't have any proof, but I have a gut feeling that there are some
> >"hidden agendas" at work that prevent the "more substantial" boardgames from
> >appearing on the shelves of TRU.
>
> TRU *does* sell games. Every TRU I've been in has a games section;
> there's a TRU on Long Island where the game section is larger than
> some hobby shops I've been in.
>
> TRU sells games for children. That should surprise no-one; TRU is a
> store for *children's goods*. Every item they sell is geared towards a
> market of children.
>
> TRU has no interest in adult games for an adult audience.
And apparently not doing that well either (source: Publishers Weekly):
Detailed sales reports about the Christmas season confirm earlier
impressions that the flush economy, high stock market (at least until the
end of 1999) and relatively warm weather made the 1999 holiday season one
of the strongest ever.
Among the trends: warehouse clubs and other discount stores had the
strongest sales; specialty and luxury stores for the most part did well;
department stores had mixed results. For example, sales at Costco outlets
open at least a year were up 18%. Wal-Mart comp-store sales were up 9.1%.
Neiman Marcus was up 14.4%. At Talbots, comp-store sales rose 11.8%.
Among the laggards: Toys R Us reported sales at stores open at least a year
were down 2%.
richar...@hotmail.com
"Christian Killoran" <xm...@pcisys.net> wrote:
> When I first read this post my jaw almost hit the keyboard! I've been
a
> gamer for about 25 years, playing American games almost exclusively
until a
> few years ago when I was exposed to some of the titles called "German"
games
> here on r.g.b. I instantly took a shine to many of these games
because they
> were different from what I was used to...but they certainly didn't
strike me
> as being less luck dependent - quite the opposite.
I think it depends on which games you look at, as far as the German
games go. There are a good dose of German games that have less luck
involved. I tend to like these games more than the luck driven games.
I will agree that German games are more light weight than the hardcore
strategy games.
> From where I sit, the American game scene has been divided into two
very
> different categories: "children's games" in which luck all but decide
the
> winners, and "serious games" (including but not limited to wargames)
where
> luck can be managed out of the picture. Just for fun, let me compare
some
> titles and you tell me which game is more luck dependent.
I think this is a later point I touched on. Games in America seem to
fall into either of the two camps, making it real hard for a serious
gamer to introduce games to non-gamers and play games they would enjoy.
> Ameritrash: Circus Maximus
> Eurotrash: Formula De
This is a good analogy.
> Ameritrash: We the People
> Eurotrash: Elfenlands (oops! Designer nationality!) how bout
Bohnanza?
This is a bad analogy. You are comparing a wargame to a light party
game. Compare Pit to Bohnanza would be better. And, I would take
Bohnanza over Pit any day.
> Ameritrash: Panzergruppe Guderian
> Eurotrash: Tikal
Again, a bad comparison. Pick an American game out that is closer to
Tikal. Survive perhaps? How about CheapAss's Something Jack game? By
the way, do you consider Tikal with the advanced auction rules for the
pieces to be heavily luck driven?
> Ameritrash: Gunslinger
> Eurotrash: Ursuppe
What does gunfighting have to do with Amoebas?
> Richard, the reason I found your comment so ironic is because I play
the
> European games when I want something light, fast, and lucky enough
that
> anybody can win.
>
>I'm glad they're around because they fill a niche
that
> American publishers can't or won't fill. But I sure don't consider
them to
> be the brain challenging pinnacle of gaming.
Well, again, it depends on the game. Some German games, while being
low in complexity, do offer a lot of strategic thinking. Others are
more light weight. Again, I think my main venting, besides the luck
angle, is that American games, unless they pile on the rules, tend to
have stale game mechanics to them. German and European games tend to
make captivating games without piling on a ton of complexity. When it
comes to lower complexity games, I am far more likely to find more
tactically challenging games with less luck in German games than
American, unless you speak abstract strategy.
- Richard Hutnik
Jeff Simons
I was starting to feel a little embattled. It's tough when you're a
small company trying to do big things. Our non-collectible Civil War
card game, Blue vs Gray, has gotten rave reviews from pundits, and while
it has sold very well for a war game, hasn't sold a fraction as much as
any of the collectible card games out there. In Essen, we were told by
Germans that Dog Eat Dog was one of the first German Style games to come
out of America, but in America, some people won't look at us because
we're not German.
(As a company driven by content and quality we have the smallest profit
margins of any company I know of because of it).
Anyway, if you want to know more about us, I suggest two places. One,
our website, at www.qedgames.com. We pride ourselves on our customer
service and information delivery. And two, the ConsimWorld discussion
board at www.consimworld.com. While ConsimWorld is admittedly more
wargame oriented, they do get into some serious dicussions about game
design all the time. You may even find an entire thread devoted to some
of your favorite games. You'll also find designers galore there, often
discussing the whys and wherefores of their "babies."
Geenius at Wrok
> TRU sells games for children. That should surprise no-one; TRU is a
> store for *children's goods*. Every item they sell is geared towards a
> market of children.
>
> TRU has no interest in adult games for an adult audience.
I haven't been in a Toys 'R' Us in a -long- time, but doesn't it sell
Hasbro's yuppie game line (Taboo, Scattergories, etc.)? I'd count those
as adult games for an adult audience. Plus, TRU also sells quite a few
children's games aimed at an adult audience. :-)
Christian Killoran
<richar...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:85istm$m65$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Well, again, it depends on the game. Some German games, while being
> low in complexity, do offer a lot of strategic thinking. Others are
> more light weight. Again, I think my main venting, besides the luck
> angle, is that American games, unless they pile on the rules, tend to
> have stale game mechanics to them. German and European games tend to
> make captivating games without piling on a ton of complexity. When it
> comes to lower complexity games, I am far more likely to find more
> tactically challenging games with less luck in German games than
> American, unless you speak abstract strategy.
I think you put your finger on why I admire many of the German games - they
often achieve a decent amount of "skill factor" WITHOUT a massive legalistic
rulebook. I can't argue that American games in the "serious" category are
very good at this.
P.S. Richard...my game comparison analogies were not intended to compare
themes. I apologize if I didn't explain myself very well. I tried to pair
up games that might compete for playing time among my own circle of gaming
buddies. In any case, I'm happy to jump up on top of your anti-luck soapbox
so long as the comments don't add up to America bashing!
Evan Jones
years ago, with 4 to 5 players. That was when I discovered the
(hitherto-unknown-to-me) INTENSE importance of picking up a property that
two other players already have. There is a naturally-occurring
finger-in-the-pie aspect that does not come out right away, but becomes
obviopus once negotiations begin. Once the property is gone (or almost
gone), multi-player negotiations begin.
One possible outcome is that the other two players would trade for a
monopoly, and this would spur the other players to do the same. Another is a
mega-trade involving three or even four players (and they have to include
YOU if you've got the requisite finger in the pie!) Yet another possibility
is that one player will luck out and get a monopoly, thus causing the other
players to deal with each other to maintain parity. Once, and only once, did
a player get Boardwalk/Park Place and also a finger in every single other
pie (of course, he would make no trades!) and the game was decided purely on
the basis of luck.
Otherwise the game develops into how and when best to build your houses
combined with straight-up luck (if no one lands on you, then you lose,
period). But the luck, at that point, is tense and "mature" (i.e., related
to previous events in the game).
So is Monopoly dominated by luck? Well, to be clear about it, yes and no. It
has its mechanical flaws (the "dollar sellout" loophole, copout rules, IMHO,
for when one can build houses, etc.). The best player player by no means
always wins (though he can "optimize" his shot at it). But it is one of the
best-loved games in the entire world, dice-for-move or no, and I found it to
be excellent fun, both in my childhood (where luck was "all") and my
adulthood (where luck was "about half").
The wargame/cardgame I designed (Blue vs Gray) has a great deal of luck, but
the better player will usually win. A huge amount of the skill is dealing
with the terrible (or excellent) luck that WILL befall you in that game, as
it was in the war, itself, which is why I designed the gamet that way. (And
if anyone wants to beef about accuracy, well, I've got the storyboard in me
pocket! Which no other ACW game has or ever had--or ever will have, unless I
badly miss my guess--'way, 'way too much work.) I will stand on it as the
best possible combination of luck and skill for a game of that kind (esp.
since the "luck factor" is historically "accurate").
As for Dog Eat Dog, I cast it more in the German mold. In other words, in a
multiplayer game, one can (though negotiation, chicanery, out-and-out
hooliganism, and crass exploitation of the rules--all highly encouraged)
more than double your chances of winning by superior play, but that still
leaves quite a few wins for the beginners to enjoy.
Also, what--kind--of luck is important. Is luck self contained or does it
lead to further decisions? Well,for example, in Dog Eat Dog, if you roll
the price of a product ($20 mil. plus 2 dice) you must decide whether to
sell it or to wait until you can roll again. There are situations when you
can't sell too much, even at a great price (if the the IRS is too close--and
I'll leave it to the payers' skullduggery how to get out of THAT one--it can
be done; figure it out!). There are situations when you sell even at a low
price (you need to make payroll, for example). There are situations where
one will sell out, even at a low price. In other words, the luck leads to
further decisions that are not "pat", but dependent on other factors. The
game will pay itself only if you let it! (Take the BS by the horns, lads!)
Another problem is "Early Luck" which allows a player to "barrel-roll" his
way to an insurmountable lead (no matter how lucky the others lre later in
the game). This is especially prevalent in wargames, and Blue vs Gray is
carefully crafted (modeled on the war, itself) to eliminate almost entirely,
this mathematical phenomenon (fight math with math!).
So, not only the amount of luck is important. There are issues of quality
(such as getting tech Axis & Allies; some rolls are more important tahn
others)--and timing. The way I see it is that between two competent players
of unequal skill, the better player should win about two thirds of the time,
and that this is the formula that produces the most fun for the most players
(not the law, mind, just my law. Ameritash, indeed! Humph!#g^1
Evan
David desJardins
> I'm not even sure many of the German games are really games. I don't
> see much "strategic thinking" involved. They are puzzles. Once you
> figure out the puzzle, you have the inside track on winning.
I think perhaps I and my friends all quickly figure out what "joe" calls
"the puzzle", so we all have the "inside track", and then we are left
with having to to play the game in order to see who wins.
I certainly do play several different games where someone who just
"doesn't get it" wouldn't have much chance. Some games, both "American"
games like Acquire and "German" games like Euphrat & Tigris, definitely
have the property that if you haven't gotten an initial understanding of
the game, then the player who has mastered that initial level of
understanding has a big advantage.
But what "joem" perhaps doesn't understand is that when everyone has
mastered that initial level of understanding (what he calls the
"puzzle") is when the real game begins.
David desJardins
joem
richar...@hotmail.com wrote in message
>Some German games, while being
>low in complexity, do offer a lot of strategic thinking. Others are
>more light weight. Again, I think my main venting, besides the luck
>angle, is that American games, unless they pile on the rules, tend to
>have stale game mechanics to them. German and European games tend to
>make captivating games without piling on a ton of complexity. When it
>comes to lower complexity games, I am far more likely to find more
>tactically challenging games with less luck in German games than
>American, unless you speak abstract strategy.
I'm not even sure many of the German games are really games. I don't see
much "strategic thinking" involved. They are puzzles. Once you figure out
the puzzle, you have the inside track on winning. The mechanics seem
different from title to title, but to me they really seem to be permutations
of the same thing. I think what American games try to do is create games
that are closer to simulations. More of the research and design go into
re-creating the situation, and prior rules/mechanics are sometimes employed.
This can aid the learning curve for a new game for players whol want to get
into it more quickly. joem.
richar...@hotmail.com
David desJardins <da...@desjardins.org> wrote:
> I certainly do play several different games where someone who just
> "doesn't get it" wouldn't have much chance. Some games,
both "American"
> games like Acquire and "German" games like Euphrat & Tigris,
definitely
> have the property that if you haven't gotten an initial understanding
of
> the game, then the player who has mastered that initial level of
> understanding has a big advantage.
>
> But what "joem" perhaps doesn't understand is that when everyone has
> mastered that initial level of understanding (what he calls the
> "puzzle") is when the real game begins.
I think this is true for a lot of strategy games. Like, take Chess.
Once you understand the fundamentals, the real game playing begins,
with the person who grasps the mechanics having a big advantage. The
thing about German games is that they have different mechanics than
people are used to, with the right way of play not being so obvious.
I do believe there are some German games that are indeed puzzles,
although the have a gaming element. "Riccocet Robot" is one, as
is "Take It Easy" (based on what I read about it). I would also
throw "Samarkand" into the mix also, being that the game it was derived
from, "Baazar" is definitely a puzzle game.
richar...@hotmail.com
"Christian Killoran" <xm...@pcisys.net> wrote:
> I think you put your finger on why I admire many of the German games -
they
> often achieve a decent amount of "skill factor" WITHOUT a massive
legalistic
> rulebook. I can't argue that American games in the "serious"
category are
> very good at this.
continued. Yes, there are very serious games out there by American
companies, I would challenge anyone to think were luckfests,
or "Ameritrash". They generally fall into two categories, however.
They are either abstract strategy games (games with arbitrary rules and
no theme), or complex simulations, with fairly large rule books. Oh,
there are low complexity strategy games also, but they generally suffer
from the luck factor (Air Barons as a prime example, particularly with
the ).
It seems that German games are able to put together several
elements that are hardly ever seen together in an American games: low
complexity (minimal rule book), having a game theme (not a sterile
abstract strategy game) which helps draw in non gamers, and requiring a
good dose of tactical and/or strategic thinking (not dominated by luck,
but this is not true of all German games, i.e Entdecker). Another
general rule observed in German games is that they pretty much all
finish up within 2 hours. A hardcore American strategy game will often
fail this test.
Oh, by the way, Dursh Die Wurst were an American game, it likely
would have been totally themeless, and totally have lost the charm of
the funky camels it now has =).
> P.S. Richard...my game comparison analogies were not intended to
compare
> themes. I apologize if I didn't explain myself very well. I tried
to pair
> up games that might compete for playing time among my own circle of
gaming
> buddies.
I know you can pair up any two games and do this, for competing with
a gamer's time.
>In any case, I'm happy to jump up on top of your anti-luck soapbox
> so long as the comments don't add up to America bashing!
I don't meant to American bash (my term "Ameritrash" was a term I
came up with to label bad trends in American games). I just wish they
would bring together more of the elements of German games into them.
It is all these elements, including the time limit, that allows them to
be played with hardcore and non-gamers.
richar...@hotmail.com
Jeff Simons <jeffs...@qedgames.com> wrote:
> Neil and Richard, thanks to both of you.
> I was starting to feel a little embattled. It's tough when you're a
> small company trying to do big things.
who worked for someone company threated to sue someone over negative
posts about their game.
>Our non-collectible Civil War
> card game, Blue vs Gray, has gotten rave reviews from pundits, and
while
> it has sold very well for a war game, hasn't sold a fraction as much
as
> any of the collectible card games out there.
Maybe you are a bit too harsh on yourself =).
>In Essen, we were told by
> Germans that Dog Eat Dog was one of the first German Style games to
come
> out of America, but in America, some people won't look at us because
> we're not German.
Well, I picked up the box and did look at it thinking, "ooh, a game
that was made by an American company. I wonder how good it is." Mind
you, that there was a bit of what you described above wondering how the
game might be screwed up because it is made by an American company. I
wonder if maybe there would be too many rules, or the game would be to
heavily dependent upon luck. I did manage to see it had a theme, so
that was less of a worry.
> (As a company driven by content and quality we have the smallest
profit
> margins of any company I know of because of it).
The boardgame business is brutal.
> Anyway, if you want to know more about us, I suggest two places. One,
> our website, at www.qedgames.com. We pride ourselves on our customer
> service and information delivery.
I checked the Web site out, but didn't find information on the game,
short of one page. Yes, I saw the theme, but it only game me what was
on the back of the box. Can you tell me if the game follows the same
initial governing mechanism found in Monopoly, that being dice rolls to
determine where a piece lands and what property to buy?
>And two, the ConsimWorld discussion
> board at www.consimworld.com. While ConsimWorld is admittedly more
> wargame oriented, they do get into some serious dicussions about game
> design all the time. You may even find an entire thread devoted to
some
> of your favorite games. You'll also find designers galore there,
often
> discussing the whys and wherefores of their "babies."
As a new company, if you are going to release non-wargames, please
have them have the following elements in them: Playable in under 2
hours, low complexity (miminal time to learn and teach), not dominated
by luck, and having a theme attached to them (preferably have the theme
linked to the game mechanics).
Justin B. Green
> What is "luck dominated", anyway? I revisited Monopoly seriously about 10
> years ago, with 4 to 5 players. That was when I discovered the
> (hitherto-unknown-to-me) INTENSE importance of picking up a property that
> two other players already have.
I haven't played Monopoly in a while, so I may be missing something, but
how does one strategically "pick up a property"? Isn't this almost
completely determined by luck (i.e., getting the roll that will land you
on the property). I suppose one of the players that doesn't own property
in the color could land on it and decide not to buy it, putting it up for
auction. But I don't think it would be worth out-bidding the two players
who have much more at stake in getting the property.
Negotiation is definitely the skill that counts in Monopoly, but if you're
landing on Community Chest the entire game, it gets old trying to trade
your get-out-of-jail free cards for Baltic Avenue and getting rejected.
By the way, I love Blue vs. Gray. There's tons of cool things about it,
but to the point, I really like how the dice-rolling battle resolution is
handled. The fact that you can lose any battle, and that your generals
could get killed at any time, really puts the "fear of war" into the game
(as has been mentioned elsewhere), while superior force and strategy will
win out in the end. I can't handle most wargames (too long and
complicated), but I'm happy to put up with the length and complexity of
Blue vs. Gray (which is less than the typical wargame, but significantly
more than most of the games I play). GREAT job!
It's also great to see you here, vigorously defending your creations with
the utmost class. Rare indeed, and highly appreciated. Just as I go out
of my way to NOT try out a certain buccaneer-themed game, I WILL go out of
my way to check out Dog Eat Dog!
Evan Jones
scurvy tricks to confound the opposition, just email me
(madsci...@qedgames.com) and I'd be more than happy to impart a few.
(Anyhow, anyone who is a friend of BvG is a friend of mine!)
Old saying: "You eat Life, or Life eats you." That applies to the Dog
Eat Dog rules. So just take those rules and do with them what a tycoon
does to the tax laws--short of actual cheating, that is! (After all, a
tycoon is what you're playing.) This is not a typical aspect of most
games, but it's what Dog Eat Dog is all about.
Evan Jones
"Justin B. Green" wrote:
> I haven't played Monopoly in a while, so I may be missing something, but
> how does one strategically "pick up a property"? Isn't this almost
> completely determined by luck (i.e., getting the roll that will land you
> on the property). I suppose one of the players that doesn't own property
> in the color could land on it and decide not to buy it, putting it up for
> auction. But I don't think it would be worth out-bidding the two players
> who have much more at stake in getting the property.
Nothing that fancy. Just that when I was a kid, none of the people I played
with would bid more than the mortgage value on a property that two other people
had, and would not buy it even if they landed on it. I later found that if you
buy that "split-up" property, it often gives one a vitally important finger
into that negotiating pie.
Evan Jones
Evan Jones
V.P. R/D
Q.E.D. Games, Inc.
Stash, Blue vs Gray, Dog Eat Dog
Kevin J. Maroney
>I haven't been in a Toys 'R' Us in a -long- time, but doesn't it sell
>Hasbro's yuppie game line (Taboo, Scattergories, etc.)? I'd count those
>as adult games for an adult audience. Plus, TRU also sells quite a few
>children's games aimed at an adult audience. :-)
Okay, there are the Hasbro party games. We can guess that they're
there because of Hasbro's fiat, but it's possible that TRU is
interested in them.
Beyond those, I can't think of anything I've seen in a TRU which isn't
perceived as a children's game, although there are many games in a TRU
which are of interest to adults ("traditional" games, for instance, or
_Sequence_).
Geenius at Wrok
> >Beyond those, I can't think of anything I've seen in a TRU which isn't
> >perceived as a children's game,
>
> I picked up 2 copies of The Great Balloon Race from there, but that was 6
> yars ago.
I'm guessing that things are a little different outside the United States.
After all, in Europe, Diplomacy has been sold by Parker Bros. for years.
Julian
>perceived as a children's game,
I picked up 2 copies of The Great Balloon Race from there, but that was 6
yars ago.
--
Regards
Julian
Melbourne, Australia
richar...@hotmail.com
risk of running out of money so you can't buy any property, then
deciding whether to pass on a piece of property or not. Other than
that, I would say 4 or more players, I don't believe you should EVER
pass on buying a piece of property, if you can afford to buy it. In a
game with 4 or more players, you are often reduced to hoping you get
something.
It is this aspect of Monopoly that makes it mindless, really. I recall
there is an "Auction" variant where a piece of unowned property
automatically goes up for auction when landed on my anyone. It
definitely makes the game more fair.
I think this is a reason why I dislike track style, roll dice, gameplay
governing mechanics. They reduced you to a place where you have almost
no control.
- Richard Hutnik
In article <Pine.OSF.3.96.100011...@inka.mssm.edu>,
"Justin B. Green" <gr...@inka.MSSM.EDU> wrote:
> I haven't played Monopoly in a while, so I may be missing something,
but
> how does one strategically "pick up a property"? Isn't this almost
> completely determined by luck (i.e., getting the roll that will land
you
> on the property). I suppose one of the players that doesn't own
property
> in the color could land on it and decide not to buy it, putting it up
for
> auction. But I don't think it would be worth out-bidding the two
players
> who have much more at stake in getting the property.
>
--
Evan Jones
richar...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Well, I picked up the box and did look at it thinking, "ooh, a game
> that was made by an American company. I wonder how good it is." Mind
> you, that there was a bit of what you described above wondering how the
> game might be screwed up because it is made by an American company. I
> wonder if maybe there would be too many rules, or the game would be to
> heavily dependent upon luck. I did manage to see it had a theme, so
> that was less of a worry.
>
> I checked the Web site out, but didn't find information on the game,
> short of one page. Yes, I saw the theme, but it only game me what was
> on the back of the box. Can you tell me if the game follows the same
> initial governing mechanism found in Monopoly, that being dice rolls to
> determine where a piece lands and what property to buy?
>
> As a new company, if you are going to release non-wargames, please
> have them have the following elements in them: Playable in under 2
> hours, low complexity (miminal time to learn and teach), not dominated
> by luck, and having a theme attached to them (preferably have the theme
> linked to the game mechanics).
>
> - Richard Hutnik
As a new company, if you are going to release non-wargames, please
have them have the following elements in them: Playable in under 2
hours, low complexity (miminal time to learn and teach), not dominated
by luck, and having a theme attached to them (preferably have the theme
linked to the game mechanics).
- Richard Hutnik
Quite!
Well, I'm the designer of Dog Eat Dog, and I don't feel slammed at all. You
guys had questions and impressions and posted them, and I welcome this.
That gives us at Q.E.D. an opportunity to address them.
Movement Randomness: In Dog Eat Dog, there are twenty squares around the
outside of the board. Most of these are "random events" squares (and most
of them are bad). When you pass/land on your home city, you can bid on a
new "Nature Square" of your choice (there are two ways to do that). So
movement does not determine what you buy, merely when.
Bidding strategy: You can "play it safe" and offer a sealed bid (which has
a chance of being rejected, depending on how much you offer) or against the
other players. If you bid against the other players, picking a square that
others don't need, checking to see how much cash-on-hand they have to bid
against you, considering how "friendly" to you everyone else is (not to
mention outright bribery and collusion) is well advised. Sometimes you can
pick up something really cheap at auction. Player who already have the max.
limit are less likely to bid heavily against you. Or you can "play it
saf(er)" and go for the sealed bid--your choice.
Extraction Strategy: You start with one square. If you extract 1/turn from
it, you don't damage it. More than that in a single turn and you damage it
(if already damaged on a previous turn, it's destroyed). So., first, it is
important to get a second square, so you should NOT completely "blow out"
your square right off the bat. You will want two squares at a time whenever
possible. Since can't have more than 2 squares at a time, it is an
advantage to drain one of them dry, just in time to bid on a new one
(assuming you ain't going "green" on us! That requires a different
strategy.) . So, if you are, say ten away from your home city, you will
have to decide whether to rip the guts out of one of your squares (and
probably spend a turn w. only one square) or hang on for a turn, assuming
you are going to roll less than ten.
These are just a couple of examples. You are taking calculated risks all
the time, and how you handle success or failure (or skeeze your way out of
a bad result by collusion or imaginative, but literal use of the rules!)
will affect your position drastically.
Collusion, while it can be very profitable, usually requires that you place
a degree of trust in your fellow players (which is where the Dog Eat Dog
theme--really--manifests itself). For example a simple "I won't bid against
you if you won't bid against me" strategy or "I'll pay you a mil. each if
you don't bid against me" can save you millions (and it is a game of
accumulation). This does require a degree of trust, though--Backstabbing is
an-all-too-common event!
If you feel you can't trust anyone, you can, indeed "go it alone". Dog Eat
Dog is designed to allow both approaches. If negotiations melt down and a
game-flame ensues, this is often the wisest course, but players who
cooperate effectively do get a leg up. In any case, the game can't
degenerate into a stalemate, because, being an accumulation game, even
players who are not getting along will be making progress towards winning.
All this is a mere scratching of the surface, of course. If anyone has any
questions, I'd be happy to answer.
Evan Jones
V.P., Research/Design/Development
Q.E.D. Games, Inc.
(Stash, Dog Eat Dog, Blue vs Gray)
"Quod Erat Demonstrandum"
Chris Camfield
>It depends on how many people you are playing with. If you have the
>risk of running out of money so you can't buy any property, then
>deciding whether to pass on a piece of property or not. Other than
>that, I would say 4 or more players, I don't believe you should EVER
>pass on buying a piece of property, if you can afford to buy it. In a
>game with 4 or more players, you are often reduced to hoping you get
>something.
Pretty much, yup.
>It is this aspect of Monopoly that makes it mindless, really. I recall
>there is an "Auction" variant where a piece of unowned property
>automatically goes up for auction when landed on my anyone. It
>definitely makes the game more fair.
It's actually the official rules, IIRC, but kids find that too
complicated, I suppose. If you don't buy the property when you land
on it, it goes up for auction.
Chris
Glenn Kuntz
<snip>
>I think this is a reason why I dislike track style, roll dice, gameplay
>governing mechanics. They reduced you to a place where you have almost
>no control.
>
>- Richard Hutnik
Richard,
How do you feel about Settlers?
Michael Urban
The "Auction" variant is that the property goes up for auction whether
you want it or not, when you land on it. I think the person whose turn
it is gets to bid first. Although I have not tried this, it would
seem to me the best way of mitigating the substantial luck element
of the critical early stages of the game. Maybe Hasbro could add
this to the rules as an "official" variation, like the Short Game.
One might contemplate variants on the bidding process, as in Modern
Art. Single-round auctions. Sealed-bid auctions. But perhaps that
way madness lies.
Geenius at Wrok
> It's actually the official rules, IIRC, but kids find that too
> complicated, I suppose. If you don't buy the property when you land
> on it, it goes up for auction.
Isn't that yet another reason why you should buy just about everything you
land on? (I say "just about" because the greens and, to a lesser extent,
yellows can offer rather poor returns for their cost.)
Kevin J. Maroney
>The "Auction" variant is that the property goes up for auction whether
>you want it or not, when you land on it. I think the person whose turn
>it is gets to bid first.
Another way to produce this effect is the variant mentioned in _Beyond
Boardwalk and Park Place_, which is to double the base price of all
properties. Players can't afford to buy every property on which they
land (as they usually can in the canonical game), which forces
frequent land auctions, but it still gives the players a chance to buy
a property on which they land if they *really* want it.
Graham Wills
>
> On Fri, 14 Jan 2000, Chris Camfield wrote:
>
> > It's actually the official rules, IIRC, but kids find that too
> > complicated, I suppose. If you don't buy the property when you land
> > on it, it goes up for auction.
>
> Isn't that yet another reason why you should buy just about everything you
> land on? (I say "just about" because the greens and, to a lesser extent,
> yellows can offer rather poor returns for their cost.)
How about this (Modern art inspired ) version:
When you land on a space you can either:
a) buy it for the base cost
b) auction it and if anyone else wins the auction, YOU
get their money
Also start with half the stated amount of cash.
-Graham
--
Graham Wills Data Visualization, Bell Labs
gwi...@research.bell-labs.com +1 (630) 979 7338
http://www.bell-labs.com/~gwills Silk for Calde!
joe willette
non-abstract American games tend to have mechanics much more closely related
to their gameplay. The original (non collectible) version of Illuminati is
a great example of this (and one of the finest games ever IMHO). This is
also why Rail Baron manages to be so fun, while simultaneously being
somewhat tedious. Joe W.
David desJardins wrote:
> "joem" <Ph...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
> > I'm not even sure many of the German games are really games. I don't
> > see much "strategic thinking" involved. They are puzzles. Once you
> > figure out the puzzle, you have the inside track on winning.
>
> I think perhaps I and my friends all quickly figure out what "joe" calls
> "the puzzle", so we all have the "inside track", and then we are left
> with having to to play the game in order to see who wins.
>
> I certainly do play several different games where someone who just
> "doesn't get it" wouldn't have much chance. Some games, both "American"
> games like Acquire and "German" games like Euphrat & Tigris, definitely
> have the property that if you haven't gotten an initial understanding of
> the game, then the player who has mastered that initial level of
> understanding has a big advantage.
>
> But what "joem" perhaps doesn't understand is that when everyone has
> mastered that initial level of understanding (what he calls the
> "puzzle") is when the real game begins.
>
> David desJardins
joe willette
every available property landed on. There was seldom, if ever, a bid because, with
few exceptions, folks would mortgage to buy property if they had to. I played a
large part in forcing this style as I firmly believed that property is the the only
thing you can count on. Even if you can't get a monopoly, you at least get safe
haven and prevent someone else from having a monopoly. I have generally found that
if you can get more than your fair share of property, you can force a win. I
simply can't imagine people passing up property....Very Strange...
Evan Jones wrote:
> "Justin B. Green" wrote:
>
> > I haven't played Monopoly in a while, so I may be missing something, but
> > how does one strategically "pick up a property"? Isn't this almost
> > completely determined by luck (i.e., getting the roll that will land you
> > on the property). I suppose one of the players that doesn't own property
> > in the color could land on it and decide not to buy it, putting it up for
> > auction. But I don't think it would be worth out-bidding the two players
> > who have much more at stake in getting the property.
>
Christian Killoran
<richar...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:85n5ak$ol9$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> It is this aspect of Monopoly that makes it mindless, really. I recall
> there is an "Auction" variant where a piece of unowned property
> automatically goes up for auction when landed on my anyone. It
> definitely makes the game more fair.
IIRC, this is not a variant...it's how the game is played. Although I share
some of your complaints about Monopoly, I think you're focusing on some
minor stuff. The game doesn't really start until all of the property has
been bought - the track style dice rolling is mostly just a randomizer to
determine the positions from which the players wheel and deal. In this
sense, it is very similar to the random tile set-up in Settlers. After the
deal-making dust has settled, the movement along the track becomes an issue
of probability as it relates to the return from your investments. Some
color groups are hit more than others, just as some resource tiles in
Settlers pay off more frequently. And, just like in Settlers, players who
fall behind early are essentially SOL barring an exceptional series of lucky
rolls.
IMO, much of the poor perception about Monopoly results from the addition of
variants, such as the pervasive Free Parking jackpot variant or neglecting
to enforce the housing limits rules. I suspect most of these variants have
been added by family type players over time to soften the cutthroat nature
of the original game - but the result has been to turn Monopoly into the
mindless luck-fest you describe.
My sincere suggestion to any serious gamer who loathes Monopoly is to play
the game just once using a strict interpretation of the rules as published.
You may be surprised to find out that the luck-skill equation is quite
comparable to Settlers.
Joshua Buergel
>
> I am curious what is it about American games that make them
> so "braindead", where luck dominates the whole game?
Nothing.
If you look at alot of the simplistic knock-off marketing tie-in kind of
games, then yeah, they're pretty stupid. I think it's also safe to say
that family style strategy games lag behind. However, there are games
of that genre being produced here. Also, there are some great CCGs
being produced. What I find most interesting, however, are the vast
array of conflict simulations being produced in here. Look at the games
being produced by GMT Games, Avalanche Press, The Gamers, Clash of Arms
and many others and you'll see alot of extremely thoughtful designs and
some very fascinating board games.
Joshua Buergel
jo...@nwlink.com
Evan Jones
> Every group I played with as a kid (and as an adult) went to great lengths to buy
> every available property landed on. There was seldom, if ever, a bid because, with
> few exceptions, folks would mortgage to buy property if they had to. I played a
> large part in forcing this style as I firmly believed that property is the the only
> thing you can count on. Even if you can't get a monopoly, you at least get safe
> haven and prevent someone else from having a monopoly. I have generally found that
> if you can get more than your fair share of property, you can force a win. I
> simply can't imagine people passing up property....Very Strange...
That's probably because you guys wer playing it right! I went back to it about 10 or 15
years ago (made a big deal out getting the rules right), and that (inter alia) became
starkly clear.
David Vander Ark
>
> <richar...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:85n5ak$ol9$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > It is this aspect of Monopoly that makes it mindless, really. I recall
> > there is an "Auction" variant where a piece of unowned property
> > automatically goes up for auction when landed on my anyone. It
> > definitely makes the game more fair.
>
> IIRC, this is not a variant...it's how the game is played.
Actually, properties go up for auction ONLY if the player landing on the
square does not buy the property from the bank in the standard Monopoly
rules. A property goes up for auction ONLY if the player landing on the
property does not buy it from the bank. The first poster is correct
here (I think it's Richard but this thread is getting hard to follow)
A Monopoly variant exists where any time an unowned property is landed
on it goes up for auction...the player landing there has no right to buy
it before it is auctioned. But this is a variant to the official rules.
richar...@hotmail.com
Evan Jones <evan...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Well, I'm the designer of Dog Eat Dog, and I don't feel slammed at
all. You
> guys had questions and impressions and posted them, and I welcome
this.
> That gives us at Q.E.D. an opportunity to address them.
Description of Dog Eat Dog deleted.
As a side note, I now own, "Dog Eat Dog". It is different than
Monopoly in numbers of areas. I would tweak the game some (I haven't
played it, however), in order to get the luck factor down some, maybe
getting rid of the the hidden bid, and leaving the entire game open to
public auction and smoothing out the extremes in the payoffs.
Store near here had a 25% off sale across the board on all boardgames
in stock. I bought some of them, "Dog Eat Dog" being one of them.
- Richard Hutnik
--
Visit DocReason's Strategy HQ for free games, reviews, and
support and opponent finding for obscure/orphan games at:
http://www.geocities.com/timessquare/fortress/7537/
richar...@hotmail.com
Graham Wills <gwi...@research.bell-labs.com> wrote:
> How about this (Modern art inspired ) version:
>
> When you land on a space you can either:
> a) buy it for the base cost
> b) auction it and if anyone else wins the auction, YOU
> get their money
>
> Also start with half the stated amount of cash.
> -Graham
Wait, I think you inspired me here. Ditch the purchase at base cost
option (or double or tripple the values properties cost), and replace
a) with an open auction. If you REALLY want the property, you have to
bid on it with other players. OR, you can put the property up for
auction and collect the money from it.
Hey, I think I may want to fire up Monopoly again, with this variant =).
richar...@hotmail.com
threads. There is a real lack of family style strategy games coming
out in from American game companies. It seems that such a game acts as
a cross-road between the casual and the hardcore gamer. It seems
American companies, as a rule, seem to cater to ever other niche but
that, whether it be abstract strategy, kid games, hardcore wargames, or
party games. There are some exceptions but they are few and far
between. As you sited, there are some first-rate American produced
designs, but they generally fall into the category of wargames.
- Richard Hutnik
In article <387FED2E...@nwlink.com>,
Joshua Buergel <jo...@nwlink.com> wrote:
> If you look at alot of the simplistic knock-off marketing tie-in kind
of
> games, then yeah, they're pretty stupid. I think it's also safe to
say
> that family style strategy games lag behind. However, there are games
> of that genre being produced here. Also, there are some great CCGs
> being produced. What I find most interesting, however, are the vast
> array of conflict simulations being produced in here. Look at the
games
> being produced by GMT Games, Avalanche Press, The Gamers, Clash of
Arms
> and many others and you'll see alot of extremely thoughtful designs
and
> some very fascinating board games.
--
Evan Jones
> IMO, much of the poor perception about Monopoly results from the addition of
> variants, such as the pervasive Free Parking jackpot variant or neglecting
> to enforce the housing limits rules. I suspect most of these variants have
> been added by family type players over time to soften the cutthroat nature
> of the original game - but the result has been to turn Monopoly into the
> mindless luck-fest you describe.
Absolutely! Its one of the best example of "real life" inflation I could ever
model! When I started playing ror real, it became obvious how vital cash could
be. In the mid-end game, property, even important stuff, would be sold for alow
price, simply because the money was utterly vital for competing--after all, if
you are near the end of a game, you can do things that would kill you in the
early-game, stuff that may be unfavorable--but that radicalizes the luck and
gives you a shot at winning that you wouldn't have, otherwise.
I have won more than one game by selling a monopoly-completing property to
another player for a--quite moderate--amount of cash-only (esp. it that leaves
the purchaser broke)--because that cash gave me a vital leg up in the building
race. Want to see someone get offered a third RR for two hundred bucks? It ain't
common, but with the money tight, I've actually seen this--and it was a
mathematically defensible move, at that!
The nature of the odds change radically from early to late in the game, and
adjusting to that will improve your chances.
>
>
> My sincere suggestion to any serious gamer who loathes Monopoly is to play
> the game just once using a strict interpretation of the rules as published.
> You may be surprised to find out that the luck-skill equation is quite
> comparable to Settlers.
Christian Killoran wrote:
Yes, indeed! Play it "straight" (and you may derive some amusement at the
discovery of some of those rules!) The luck is maybe slightly more radical
(fewer "hits", and the "hits" have more dire results, usually), but I think,
indeed, comparable with Settlers.
Now, there is a lot of luck, and the player who goes last and trails the others
is at a distinct disadvantage (which is why I like it best with four players,
rather than five). Also, a petulant player may evade the ban on "giving stuff
away" by "selling it all for a buck", and that had to be an ethic because we
really couldn't, well, define it. (I'm sure the guys who use real money to play
have that one covered, though, to prevent two condeferates from throwing to each
other in two separate games and, on average, raking in the loot, and splitting
the take on th q-t!)
But I do insist it is a true gambler's game, and an inherently brilliant design
(regardless of who allegedly stole it from whom). YMMV, of course!
Evan Jones
V.P. Research/Design/Development
Q.E.D. Games, inc.
(Dog Eat Dog, Blue vs Gray, Stash)
"Quod Erat Demonstrndum"
Christian Killoran
David Vander Ark <dvand...@usxchange.net> wrote in message
news:388001B2...@usxchange.net...
> Actually, properties go up for auction ONLY if the player landing on the
> square does not buy the property from the bank in the standard Monopoly
> rules. A property goes up for auction ONLY if the player landing on the
> property does not buy it from the bank.
Yup. I misunderstood Richard's comment. My bad. The auction rule as
written is essentially a balancing mechanism to mitigate the effects of one
lucky player landing on most of the properties early while opponents get
stuck repeatedly on non-property spaces. The first player will soon run out
of cash if buying up everything, and the auction lets the others into the
race.
Evan Jones
> In article <387F1D93...@mindspring.com>,
> Evan Jones <evan...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> > Well, I'm the designer of Dog Eat Dog, and I don't feel slammed at
> all. You
> > guys had questions and impressions and posted them, and I welcome
> this.
> > That gives us at Q.E.D. an opportunity to address them.
>
> Description of Dog Eat Dog deleted.
>
> As a side note, I now own, "Dog Eat Dog". It is different than
> Monopoly in numbers of areas. I would tweak the game some (I haven't
> played it, however), in order to get the luck factor down some, maybe
> getting rid of the the hidden bid, and leaving the entire game open to
> public auction and smoothing out the extremes in the payoffs.
>
> Store near here had a 25% off sale across the board on all boardgames
> in stock. I bought some of them, "Dog Eat Dog" being one of them.
>
> - Richard Hutnik
>
> --
>
> Visit DocReason's Strategy HQ for free games, reviews, and
> support and opponent finding for obscure/orphan games at:
> http://www.geocities.com/timessquare/fortress/7537/
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
Dog Eat Dog is a "Top Down" design (like everything I do). This means it
takes very well to variants.
The reason that Sealed Bids are incuded is so that a player can avoid
being ganged up on, if they choose (at a price) or else attempt to collude
successfully to pick up the square really cheap at auction. I have played
some games where there were few auctions, and some in which there was
never a sealed bid!
This-all is a manifestation of my being on the short end of three players
one time too often, and as a result, anything I design has three players
in mind, where ganging up has some effect, but does not simply put the
"victim" out of the game (which can be frustrating, after a while!).
But that's a bee in my bonnet, and it needn't be in yours. When you try
out any variations, I'd really enjoy it (and find it useful) if you'd post
here to let me know how it works (or doesn't).
(P.S., Design is easy--development is the widowmaker!)
Evan Jones
V.P. Research/Development/Design
Q.E.D. Games, Inc.
(Dog Eat Dog, Blue vs Gray, Stash -- and more upcoming!)
David desJardins
> I think the more significant point of Joem's post is that the
> "serious" non-abstract American games tend to have mechanics much more
> closely related to their gameplay.
I don't understand what this would mean.
When I play any game, the decisions I make (the "gameplay") is entirely
determined by the mechanics of the game. I read the rules, consider the
options, and choose that option which under the rules gives me the best
chance of the best outcome. That is the essence of a "strategy" game.
So, in my mind, there's always a 100% correlation between the rules of
the game (the "mechanics") and the player decisions (the "gameplay").
How is it that they could be more closely related in one game and less
closely related in another game?
David desJardins
One Brow
from the starting cash, plus $400 every time he passes
GO (there is no need to keep the properties unmortgaged
if the player will wind up owning most of them).
--
Free audio & video emails, greeting cards and forums
Talkway - http://www.talkway.com - Talk more ways (sm)
Mark Johnson
>
>So, in my mind, there's always a 100% correlation between the rules of
>the game (the "mechanics") and the player decisions (the "gameplay").
>How is it that they could be more closely related in one game and less
>closely related in another game?
Well, when I play wargames, I often think of my moves in term of the
situation being simulated, more than the rules of that simulation. I'm not
blind to what the rules dictate in these situations, but it's a case where
we've moved beyond mere theme. If I have Pickett charge across that field,
I'm thinking much more of the history of that battle than I am about die
roll modifiers and odds tables. Does that mean I'm not playing to win?
Possibly, but it also means the simulation game is doing exactly what it's
supposed to be doing, for me. Indeed, that's the appeal of simulation
games, and what (partially) justifies their inelegance compared to an
abstract, often symmetric game.
-MJ
joe willette
David desJardins wrote:
> joe willette <will...@mail.ameritel.net> writes:
> > I think the more significant point of Joem's post is that the
> > "serious" non-abstract American games tend to have mechanics much more
> > closely related to their gameplay.
>
> I don't understand what this would mean.
>
> When I play any game, the decisions I make (the "gameplay") is entirely
> determined by the mechanics of the game. I read the rules, consider the
> options, and choose that option which under the rules gives me the best
> chance of the best outcome. That is the essence of a "strategy" game.
>
> So, in my mind, there's always a 100% correlation between the rules of
> the game (the "mechanics") and the player decisions (the "gameplay").
> How is it that they could be more closely related in one game and less
> closely related in another game?
>
> David desJardins
Taken out of the context of the rest of the post, I agree that the above
quote makes little sense (and perhaps my entire earlier post wasn't clear
:-)). Substitute "theme" for "gameplay" (and somehow work in the effect on
gameplay) and it is closer to what I was trying to say.
Dog Eat Dog is a perfect example of this. Your success is measured by how
well you get into the spirit of the game, especially when it comes to deal
making. Those who can imagine that they are really corporate pillagers and
think "What would I do if I were really in that situation?", can usually
come up with the most effective deals. Additionally the entire mechanism of
extracting raw materials and producing goods is woven into the theme almost
as a simulation. I believe that this is a consisten trait of most good
American games.
Very often in German games, the key is mastering an abstract mechanism,
often a puzzle, that has little to do with the theme of the game. A perfect
example of this is the excellent game, Durch Die Wuste. Success in that
game has nothing to do with imagining how a real series of caravans would be
put together to most effectively trade.
Evan Jones
> Dog Eat Dog is a perfect example of this. Your success is measured by how
> well you get into the spirit of the game, especially when it comes to deal
> making. Those who can imagine that they are really corporate pillagers and
> think "What would I do if I were really in that situation?", can usually
> come up with the most effective deals. Additionally the entire mechanism of
> extracting raw materials and producing goods is woven into the theme almost
> as a simulation. I believe that this is a consisten trait of most good
> American games.
That says in a single paragraph what I have tried to say in five pages. (As a
matter of fact, I am a wargamer of almost 30 years, and old habbits die hard!) I
am trying to marry (shotgun, please!) the American and German concepts. In both
Stash and Dog Eat Dog, you move around a track as in an American game, but there
is a MAP in the middle, like a wargame--or a German game. And the feel's the
thing! I want to have a foot in both worlds, "to stride this narrow world like a
col . . . " (Oh, never mind! Render unto Caesar . . .)
(Joe, BTW, did you get a chance to check out "Elefantenland" on BROG?-)
Evan Jones
V.P., Design/Reserach/Development
Q.E.D. Games, Inc.
Kevin J. Maroney
><richar...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:85n5ak$ol9$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>> It is this aspect of Monopoly that makes it mindless, really. I recall
>> there is an "Auction" variant where a piece of unowned property
>> automatically goes up for auction when landed on my anyone. It
>> definitely makes the game more fair.
>
>IIRC, this is not a variant...it's how the game is played.
Not quite. Note that Richard said that the piece of unowned propery
automatically goes up for auction when landed on by *anyone*. In
canonical _Monopoly_, a piece of unowned property goes up for auction
when landed on by anyone *who then declines to buy it at its list
price*. Admittedly, very few people seem to know about this rule.
David desJardins
> Dog Eat Dog is a perfect example of this. Your success is measured by how
> well you get into the spirit of the game, especially when it comes to deal
> making. Those who can imagine that they are really corporate pillagers and
> think "What would I do if I were really in that situation?", can usually
> come up with the most effective deals.
Do you really believe this? There may be many reasons for enjoying a
"role-playing" approach to play, but it would never have occurred to me
to believe that getting better results in the game is one of them. My
theory of play is that the mechanisms of the game determine which moves
or decisions will work best. If you took the "Dog Eat Dog" game, and
removed the "corporate raider" theme and replaced it with a "space
colonization" theme, then the game might be more or less enjoyable for
the players, but the best decision at every step should be just the
same. At any time when you allow the theme to influence you in your
decision making process, you are deviating from the best decision with
respect to the underlying game.
David desJardins
David Vander Ark
I hate to keep sounding like a Monopoly Apologist, but you start with
$1500 and get $200 when you pass Go.
David desJardins
> Well, when I play wargames, I often think of my moves in term of the
> situation being simulated, more than the rules of that simulation.
> Indeed, that's the appeal of simulation games, and what (partially)
> justifies their inelegance compared to an abstract, often symmetric
> game.
Huh. I don't think there's anything "inelegant" about games which are
not abstract or not symmetric. Indeed, I think of symmetry as
inelegant. The space of symmetric games is far smaller than the space
of all games: by constraining oneself to a symmetric game, the designer
greatly restricts the alternatives. All sorts of interesting things
simply can't happen in games with symmetric play.
Indeed, I think that one of the main reasons I often enjoy playing
simulation games, even though I don't care about the themes, is that the
asymmetry of the situation helps the designer to overcome the problem of
symmetry that often is inherent in the design of abstract games.
David desJardins
John Harrington
at Wrok <gee...@albany.net> writes
>On Tue, 11 Jan 2000 richar...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>> I think below is a reason why I dislike most games produced in
>> America. Why is it, at a rule, they are bound to produced games run
>> amok with randomness, and the old Parchesi method of dice rolls
>> governing movement on a track-like structure? Come up with a novel
>> game theme, and then slap it on the same old brain-dead game mechanics.
>> Think of most of the American games out there that have been produced.
>
(Responding to two posts at once here).
As you say elsewhere there are exceptions; off the top of my head
there's Acquire, Speed Circuit, Win Place & Show.
However, I agree that to Mr. & Mrs. Average Gamer (especially here in
Britain, it seems) a board game is *almost* by definition a game where
you roll dice and move a dobber round a circuit (unless it is a parlour
game like Pictionary).
>
>When you get right down to it, if you remove all randomness -- from setup,
>from movement, from events -- what you have is practically by definition
>an abstract strategy game. I suppose a case could be made that certain
>negotiation games such as Diplomacy are exceptions. But I know lots of
>people who consider Diplomacy an abstract strategy game as well.
>
1830? Die Macher?
It's been years since I played the latter but I don't recall a lot of
luck/randomisation in it and yet for me it is one of the least abstract
German games I have played.
>
>--
>"I wish EVERY day could be a shearing festival!" -- The 10 Commandments
>=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
Sorry old bean, I don't understand your banter! What's so great about a
shearing festival? (Apologies if you've answered this before).
John Harrington
Fiendish Board Games - makers of Breaking Away, Office Politics and Traffic
Lights
www.fiendishgames.demon.co.uk
Evan Jones
David desJardins wrote:
If Dog Eat Dog were designed on almost any other theme (i.e., greedy, corrupt
exploiters), it would fly apart at the hinges. The reason is that the rules are
very simple and have all sorts of loopholes which players strike forth take
advantage of. Some of these are obvious, some less so. The reason the game is a
satire in the first place is that players are induced to outrageously
exploit(legit) loopholes in the rules (in a way that would ruin other games) in a
similar manner to the way (all too often) it's done in real life.
After all, what would you do to avoid windfall taxes in real life, were you so
inclined? If you ask that question and come up with a successful Dog Eat Dog
answer, I can only say that this was--exactly--what I was attempting to achieve
with the design . . .The very point of Dog Eat Dog to IS to profit--very damned
mechanically--directly from your "role-play".
(Yes, I'm serious! Seek and yea shall find!)
This, I think is what JW is saying from the other side of the hill. Cynical
rules exploitation IS the real game mechanism (and we go to great lengths o point
this out in the rules), but it's not just math, nor is it a 菟uzzle".(No such
gaping loopholes exist in any of my other designs . . . )
Evan Jones
V.P. R/D/D
Q.E.D. Games, Inc.
"Quod Erat Demostrandum"
Geenius at Wrok
> Mark Johnson <Mark.E....@pobox.com> writes:
>
> > Indeed, that's the appeal of simulation games, and what (partially)
> > justifies their inelegance compared to an abstract, often symmetric
> > game.
>
> Huh. I don't think there's anything "inelegant" about games which are
> not abstract or not symmetric.
Here, here! Diplomacy is anything but symmetric (some might argue that
it's not even completely balanced), but it's one of the most elegant games
I know. Although I think Johnson wasn't saying so much that nonabstract,
asymmetric games are necessarily inelegant but that abstract, symmetric
ones are generally very elegant. To which I'd say, an abstract game,
symmetric or not, is gonna -have- to be elegant to have any chance of
holding my attention, and not a whole lot of them have managed it.
--
"I wish EVERY day could be a shearing festival!" -- The 10 Commandments
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
Live with honor, endure with grace "I notice you have a cloud of doom.
Keith Ammann is gee...@enteract.com I must admit it makes you seem
www.enteract.com/~geenius * Lun Yu 2:24 dangerous and sexy."
Geenius at Wrok
> If Dog Eat Dog were designed on almost any other theme (i.e., greedy, corrupt
> exploiters), it would fly apart at the hinges. The reason is that the rules are
> very simple and have all sorts of loopholes which players strike forth take
> advantage of. Some of these are obvious, some less so. The reason the game is a
> satire in the first place is that players are induced to outrageously
> exploit(legit) loopholes in the rules (in a way that would ruin other games) in a
> similar manner to the way (all too often) it's done in real life.
Ahhhh ... you just raised my level of interest in this game considerably.
:-) (Although I'm not sure whom this is better for -- the rules lawyers
whose behavior it legitimizes or the rules lawyer haters who now have a
chance to give the rules lawyers a taste of their own medicine!)
Tim Shippert
>Now, there is a lot of luck, and the player who goes last and trails the
>others is at a distinct disadvantage (which is why I like it best with
>four players, rather than five).
One way to mitigate this is to bid for the right to go first.
Another Monopoly scenario I want to try someday is to start with
no (zero) money. I don't know how to handle going bankrupt early on
(maybe you just get to start over from scratch for the first twenty turns
or so, or maybe start with $200 for just passing Go), but it would
certainly add something to the decision about whether to buy a property
or not. And those $10 rents for St. Charles would suddenly become a big
deal, for both players.
--
Tim Shippert ship...@alumni.caltech.edu
Third Amendment absolutist.
Mark Jackson
> It is this aspect of Monopoly that makes it mindless, really. I recall
> there is an "Auction" variant where a piece of unowned property
> automatically goes up for auction when landed on my anyone. It
> definitely makes the game more fair.
Jonathan Degann suggested a different variant to the standard rules:
--- Players who land on a property may NOT buy it if it would be their 3rd (or
2nd, for drk blue & purple) in that monopoly. Instead, that property is
automatically auctioned (open auction).
I do like the ideas for Modern Art auctions floating about... hmmm.
--
Let me explain....no, there is too much. Let me sum up.
THE PRINCESS BRIDE
Mark Jackson
Nashville, TN
Mark Johnson
<vohk8l9...@yuban.berkeley.edu>:
>Indeed, I think that one of the main reasons I often enjoy playing
>simulation games, even though I don't care about the themes, is that the
>asymmetry of the situation helps the designer to overcome the problem of
>symmetry that often is inherent in the design of abstract games.
Hmm. Well, what I was trying to say was just that many simulation games,
primarily wargames, are anything but elegant in their design mechanics (die
roll modifiers, lookup tables, endless special rules). Yet they have a
devoted following, and I think that's for an obvious other reason: because
they have a theme so strong that they couldn't hardly be about anything
else. You may not look upon the subject matter of a wargame as its
strongest feature, but that must surely be one of the primary factors for
people who enjoy the game.
-MJ
David desJardins
> Hmm. Well, what I was trying to say was just that many simulation games,
> primarily wargames, are anything but elegant in their design mechanics (die
> roll modifiers, lookup tables, endless special rules).
I don't think that I agree that die roll modifiers, lookup tables, or
special rules are necessarily "inelegant". It depends what they are
intended to do, and what they actually accomplish. Some games use die
roll modifiers in very elegant ways, to capture particular strategy
considerations or to create particular interesting tactical problems
that otherwise wouldn't exist.
> You may not look upon the subject matter of a wargame as its strongest
> feature, but that must surely be one of the primary factors for people
> who enjoy the game.
If you understand that the subject matter of a game isn't very important
to me, how can you assert that it's a primary factor for "people who
enjoy the game"? Are you claiming that I don't enjoy the games that I
play?
Maybe you mean it's a primary factor for some people? Of course that's
true. I think I said so. It's important to some, and not to others.
David desJardins
Mark Johnson
>Maybe you mean it's a primary factor for some people? Of course that's
>true. I think I said so. It's important to some, and not to others.
Yes, that's what I meant. Sorry I wasn't more clear.
-MJ
Evan Jones
let me know. A
WWII game would be wrecked if the German found a loophole to get out of
paying for
production, but if you get out of paying taxes (by, say paying a
confederate to hold
your money for temporary "safekeeping", or some such risky deal), the
game is not
wrecked at all.
Bear in mind though, that many of the methods of evading the rules
requires the
collusion of the other players! Conspiring to bid low only works if
everyone bids low.
Cooperating to shuffle money around to avoid taxes requires a
trustworthy
co-conspirator. To "not notice" public laws requires one to arrange that
others "avert
their eyes". Etc. And of course, betrayal is a constant threat. But
players who
cooperate successfully will do better, in the long run.
Evan Jones
V.P. R/D/D Q.E.D. Games, Inc.
"Quod Erat Demonstrandum"
(Dog Eat Dog, Blue vs Gray, Stash, more to come!)