Modern Art: design question
Eric Dodds
We've played a half dozen games of Modern Art over the past couple days and
our game group really likes it.
We did run into one snag tho: when a player starts a double auction with a
single card (that is, one of the following players must complete the
auction) this often really screws the player to the left of the auctioneer
as that player "misses" his chance to choose an artist to auction which
influences that round. This is compounded later in the game when players
may not even own a painting by the double auction artist and lose an auction
turn in a crucial part of the game (when paintings are sold at their highest
value) To make things worse there is little or no risk to the first
auctioneer. He gets to split the auction money, he gets to greatly
influence the round by putting up two paintings by a single artist, and he
has a small opportunity of owning a painting for free.
There is an optional rule that states that if a player starts a double
auction with a single card then whoever completes the auction receives all
the money (the money is not split between the two players) We've been
playing with this rule as it adds more risk to the person who is starting
the auction.
So we feel we've "fixed" the game and enjoy it very much but we're still
wondering way this variant is not part of the primary rules. Does anyone
have any ideas? Is there anyone out there who prefers the original rules?
Why? BTW if anyone knows the game designer (Reiner Kniza) I would greatly
appreciate it if you could forward this message to him.
Modern Art is a very elegant game that plays wonderfully. Unfortunately
this excellence just highlights any part of the rules that appear
sub-standard.
Robert + Eric
Richard
On 21 May 1997 10:01:01 -0700, "Eric Dodds" <dje...@primenet.com>
wrote:
There is the option for the other players of not following the = card
- but this lets the original player get the card for free.
The original German version was played with the "optional" rule - ie,
the money all goes to the player who contributes the second picture.
After discovering that the American version was different, I asked Dr.
Knizia about the change (Ooh, you namedropper!). He told me that he
quite liked the change to the rules in the Mayfair version, as in the
original there is very little advantage to playing an = card on its
own. As this becomes economically viable with the American version,
it opens up some extra choices for the players - something which most
German games thrive on.
But I'm afraid if you don't like the "original" American version, and
play with the variant, the credit for the "fix" goes to Reiner - and
the German original had no other way to play!
Richard
Christopher Dearlove
In article <djester-2105...@ip207.sna.primenet.com>, Eric Dodds
AFAIR from a conversation with Reiner Knizia your "optional rule" is in fact his
original rule, changed by the publisher to what is now standard.
I may see him again next month at a convention and check, but don't rely on it,
or on my answer above either.
--
Christopher Dearlove ch...@mnemosyne.demon.co.uk Speaking only for myself
Christopher Dearlove
In article <33834eee...@news.zynet.co.uk>, Richard
<URL:mailto:dews...@mail.zynet.co.uk> wrote:
> After discovering that the American version was different, I asked Dr.
> Knizia about the change (Ooh, you namedropper!). He told me that he
> quite liked the change to the rules in the Mayfair version, as in the
> original there is very little advantage to playing an = card on its
> own. As this becomes economically viable with the American version,
> it opens up some extra choices for the players - something which most
> German games thrive on.
Glad to see someone agrees with my recollection (also with namedropping)
posted earlier though yours is more complete than mine.
Actually "people who've met and playtested for Reiner" is a large group
as he does so much of it. (Recommended if you get a chance, the only
frustrating thing is there's at least one game - no names, no packdrill,
whilst I haven't signed an NDA I think there's a moral one - I want to
buy once Dr. Knizia sells it!)
Derek Hohls
Eric Dodds wrote:
>
> We've played a half dozen games of Modern Art over the past couple days and
> our game group really likes it.
>
> We did run into one snag tho: when a player starts a double auction with a
> single card (that is, one of the following players must complete the
> auction) this often really screws the player to the left of the auctioneer
> as that player "misses" his chance to choose an artist to auction which
> influences that round. This is compounded later in the game when players
> may not even own a painting by the double auction artist and lose an auction
> turn in a crucial part of the game (when paintings are sold at their highest
> value) To make things worse there is little or no risk to the first
> auctioneer. He gets to split the auction money, he gets to greatly
> influence the round by putting up two paintings by a single artist, and he
> has a small opportunity of owning a painting for free.
>
> There is an optional rule that states that if a player starts a double
> auction with a single card then whoever completes the auction receives all
> the money (the money is not split between the two players) We've been
> playing with this rule as it adds more risk to the person who is starting
> the auction.
>
We play this game acording to the rules translation in the The Game Cabinet
where the first player gets *nothing* if he does not play the matching card.
We find that mostly people prefer to play their own matching cards rather than
take risk of "getting the card for free" versus "losing the sale to the guy to
your left" (a double sale is, anyway, a better use of your turn in terms of
securing income/influeincing the market - I struggle in those games where I
*don't* get many = cards).
My 2c.
Derek.
CafeJay
Eric Dodds wrote:
>
> We've played a half dozen games of Modern Art over the past couple days
> and our game group really likes it.
>
> We did run into one snag tho: when a player starts a double auction with
> a single card (that is, one of the following players must complete the
> auction) this often really screws the player to the left of the
auctioneer
> as that player "misses" his chance to choose an artist to auction which
> influences that round. This is compounded later in the game when
> players may not even own a painting by the double auction artist and
> lose an auction turn in a crucial part of the game (when paintings are
> sold at highest value) To make things worse there is little or no risk
to
> the 1st auctioneer. He gets to split the auction money, he gets to
> greatly influence the round by putting up two paintings by a single
> artist, and he has a small opportunity of owning a painting for free.
>
> There is an optional rule that states that if a player starts a double
> auction with a single card then whoever completes the auction receives
> all the money (the money is not split between the two players) We've
> been playing with this rule as it adds more risk to the person who is
> starting the auction.
>
For those who care about game history: we, at Mayfair had "learned" to
play the game the way we published our rules, thinking it was correct - we
obviously mistranslated the rules. When we showed our rules to Reiner for
his approval, he noted the mistake, but indicated, as others have
suggested, that he rather liked it our "wrong" way. Thus, we kept it, but,
in defference to the original included those rules as a variant.
Play whichever you like best - or any other way for that matter - if
you're having fun - you're playing it right!!
Jay