Category: Games

This came at the end of a vigorous back and forth with a fairly stubborn conversation partner who was unwilling to explain what he meant by “good” with any definition more specific than “high quality” (and rants against relativists). It almost devolved into an exercise in futility, but turned out to be worth the effort because someone else jumped in and threw in some interesting ideas. It pulled the conversation out of its tailspin and it was good to be reminded that things aren’t that complicated, many thanks to mathaos42.

Although you both have likely achieved a higher degree of education than me I will still offer a suggested definition for potentially good art. I enjoy reading and visual arts, these are my relatively simple observations for how I understand what I read and view.

For me, good art meets three criteria (and employs them consistently within itself):

– Form/Technique – The work of art successfully implements the technique utilized in its creation. This could be a certain style of brush stroke or a syntax and writing style.

– Function/Concepts – Art should stimulate an emotional response and in some way speak to what it is to be here to be human. The intended message of art is important.

Form and function should inform one another, doing it ironically is fine. You can break the rules as long as you know them.

– Context/Culture – Some art is in a language I don’t speak. I would not recognize “good” abstract art but I accept it exists. I believe I am simply not educated in its language and part of the community. For me art builds on previous art, is influenced by the society it exists in and speaks to the context in which it was created. Art is a continuation of dialogue between the artist, their community, their peers and their predecessors. Good art may not be recognized by all but it is recognized by those fluent in the appropriate language.

Ultimately art is a medium for communication. Good art at least successfully communicates to those who are part of the intended culture and understand the context in which it is to be viewed. One of the fun
things about being human is that so much of our context is shared. While I don’t understand or appreciate abstract art due to my lack of desire to educate myself in its particular language I appreciate the Sistine Chapel and Shakespeare (with all respect to the great Russian writer). I also appreciate some art styles with less mass appeal, such as outsider art. Bad art exists. I know, I can create it. Art can also be good without my liking it.

What a great response! I had spent much of the conversation asking for a definition of art partly because I haven’t really been able to think it through clearly myself. I don’t know if the response would be unsatisfactorily relativist for the other guy, but I suspect this very closely mirrors my approach in “judging” a piece of art.

My summary if mathos42 posts would be:

1. Is a well crafted?
2. Did the artist say anything?
3. Does it touch the audience?

In response, I would simplify the list.

• Is it well crafted?
• Does it touch the audience?

For the first we judge the artist against their available tools, information, and contemporaries. We can judge their skill in producing the the art against their context.

For the second, we examine the effects their work has brought on this earth. Did it touch the people who the artist wanted to reach; does it touch people today? The stereotype of the unacknowledged genius reminds us that the initial reaction to a piece of work may be quite different from its long term legacy. The people of Shakespeare’s time clearly didn’t appreciate his genius as much as we do today – otherwise we wouldn’t be talking about missing plays.

The reason I would omit the middle criteria is because I feel that the artists’ intention is not important once they send it out in the world. The public statements of an artists might might inform the audience reaction, but only as one among the billion things that end up affecting the audience reaction. Ultimately, the reaction is owned by the audience.

There’s a story that Isaac Asimov mentioned in his book Opus 100

I once listened to a German philosopher discuss one of my stories in detail when he didn’t know I was in the audience. After his lecture I cam up to dispute the points he had made in his interpretation and presented him with what I felt was a blockbuster when I said, “After all, I happen to be the author of the story.”

“Oh,” said he, “are you Isaac Asimov? I’m pleased to meet you and I admire your work, but tell me – What makes you think, just because you wrote the story, that you know anything at all about it?”

I’ve never tried to forget that little lesson.

For what its worth, the other guy also agreed. He felt the 3 point criteria was just a long way of saying “high quality”. I’m still puzzled why he was so uncurious to work on developing a better working definition of “good” beyond the circular and inadequate phrase “high quality”, especially since he was trying to say there are things that are “universally good”.

I hope this post isn’t just a rationalization for not buying games. I almost never touch my DIY games, and if a DIY project only played only once or twice, I don’t feel like I’ve stolen anything from the designer or publisher.

Conversations about DIY games are always tricky because because it becomes a questions of morals. And its hard to argue morals especially in this world where the physical and intellectual properties collide.

The first group says “this is theft!”

The second group responds, “its not theft, I didn’t take anything that wasn’t mine.”

The first group says “well maybe not physical theft, but intellectual theft.”

The second group says, “hey they gave out the rules freely, what I do with this copy of the rules is my business not yours.”

The first group says “you’re depriving the publishers of possible income from the game.”

The second group responds “by going out and getting the game played and helping add to the buzz for it, I’m doing my fair share in marketing and selling the game” (this is not mere theory by the way, I just purchased the game Nefertiti based on the recommendation of Gary Garrison. How did I find out he had played the game? He uploaded a picture of his DIY set on BGG)

The first group says “well it still feels wrong even if its not illegal…grumble…grumble…”

And the second group responds “who are you to tell me what I can and can’t do….grumble…grumble….”

Rinse lather repeat.

Our society is having difficulty coming to a consensus about the nature of intellectual property. I think everyone is fine with a dude profiting from his ideas. But how much leeway should the audience have for making derivative works based on these ideas? At what point does the derivative work impinge on the right of the originators to profit from their efforts? Should the recipient of ideas that are freely given away be allowed to make a derivative work based on these ideas instead of purchasing the product that was being marketed through the distribution of these ideas?

To me, some DIY scenarios are no brainers. If a game is out of print, and the neither the publisher nor designer would see any of the money I might spend on the secondary market for a used copy, then I have no qualms making my own copy. But I think most of us would agree that would be wrong to start a business producing and distributing reproductions of another designer/publisher’s out of print titles without getting the proper permissions. If a publisher chooses to keep their rules on lock down, I don’t think it is be right to circumvent that desire, obtaining a copy of the rules through back channels in order to make a DIY version of the game.

But those are the easy scenarios. The interesting questions are in the grey areas. 

• How about a case where the art is just ugly as sin with shoddy components?
• What if the game is an import and the shipping costs dwarf any money the publisher might realize from the sale?
• Or if its just a barely modified card game that could be easily played with a poker deck? 

I am perfectly fine making DIY sets in each of these scenarios. A games publisher is not merely selling rules, they are also selling components – if they chose to give the rules away for free as marketing but they fail to back it up with a compelling product at an appropriate price point with a proper distribution network, then I think there is nothing wrong with taking the rules they freely gave away and spending my own time, energy and money to build my own set.

However, I am not a perfectly rational human being. And so yes, I will admit that the second set of scenarios do feel like a gray area for me. I do kind of feel like maybe I stiffed Sean David Ross by trying out a couple games of Haggis by with a cobbled set of poker decks. I wouldn’t proudly walk up to Tom Lehman and tell him that Zman’s art for Middle Kingdom was so ugly that I decided to spend a weekend making my own cards without purchasing the game. This slight emotional conflict does make me wonder at times if maybe I am doing something wrong.

But when I think about it, it just doesn’t make sense. If I bought a used copy of Haggis, is it suddenly OK to play the game guilt free? Would I ever be ashamed to tell a designer or publisher that I loved their game even if all I did was play on other people’s copies? I don’t feel even the slightest hint of guilt that Andreas Seyfarth never got compensation from the used copy of Puerto Rico I purchased. Or even worse all those free plays of Ra that cost me nothing at my friend’s house. Is Reiner being ripped off any more or less than Sean David Ross?

I think we are at an interesting point in time. We grew up in a physical world. I give you an item in exchange for something that I want. In the past where everything was physical, it was easy to keep track of exchanges. You bought a game and got both the components and the rules. If you stole the rules, you were literally taking them out of the box and walking away without paying for them. But now its cheap and easy to share information. And in this brave new world some publishers have decided to give away the rules in hopes that people will purchase the components that are custom built to go with these rules.

They give these rules away knowing that most people who download their rules will read them and then do nothing. And no one would say that reading the rules and walking away is morally questionable wrong even though clearly that was not the outcome the publisher was hoping for. So is it really all that wrong to put together a set of components to play the game with these rules? It is not what the publisher would prefer, but we’ve already established that not obeying the publisher’s preferences is not inherently wrong.

We are adjusting to this new world of bits and information, freely passed around. I think our feelings and morals are catching up to this new paradigm. That’s why my rational side sees no issues with DIYing but my emotional side sometimes gets hesitant about DIYing. But whenever I think it through, I realize that I still have no rational issue with DIYing, so I again conclude its all right.

But I’m not a hardliner, I see why other people might default to saying “not cool” and I’m not going to demand that someone accept the way I enjoy this hobby.

What is right and what is wrong? Hell people have been arguing about that shit for millennia.

Originally posted on Boardgamegeek.com

A few months ago when I was on an indie RPG kick, I came across the lovely forum story-games. Its a great place. One of the first posts I did there was part of a “5-minute” RPG challenge. Just come up with a new game…Quick!

The game I came up with is not worth mentioning (few 5-minute ideas are) but I wrote a couple posts that rehashes things I talk about regularly in real life but I don’t mention much online. Because of the length of the exchange I am breaking them into two blog posts. This first one dealt with the importance of playing with game design but though a very meandering path beginning with ruminations on my profession. This post deals with why I so greatly value design development.

TomasHVM, the initiator of the 5-minute challenge:
Hi Justus! Thank you for posting those thoughts (in the earlier post); very interesting.

You are right, of course; ideas are cheap. But you do not find the good ideas if you don’t dare to play around a bit, with ideas of all sorts. That’s what we have done in the 5 minute thread.

Having people learning something from dabbling in game-craft is very nice, even though most of them don’t go further with it. Their ideas are still out there, in the form of games posted, and in thoughts had by the people who read those games.

Such a practice is very nice for the culture of game-craft.

My Response:
Tomas, I very much agree, I hope I did not seem too harsh…I guess an unspoken assumption that I didn’t make clear is that I believe all initial ideas are crap. Even if you have a moment of of genius, the slightest bit of prodding at that nascent state would show major problems that could easily derail the initial idea. Whatever the creative endeavor, it is the refining process that takes brilliant notions and turns them into complete “thoughts”…and generally the refining process entails taking the idea-spark and doing a lot of bad iterations, developing the idea until something halfway decent come out.

I think this is an issue of unnuanced internet tone, but when I say ideas are cheap and generally crummy, I mean to say it in a very fond way – in that you gotta start somewhere, and it’s rarely pretty. But that’s where we all start. The next step – and out of the scope of the 5-minute game exercise – is to flesh out these ideas.

By the way I quite like the idea of “game-craft”. Reminds me of a book, How Buildings Learn. Its not written by an architect, but I really like his provocative theory that one of the major problems of the profession of Architecture is that it wants to view itself as an art or a science, but one is too capricious and the other too rigid. He felt it would be a much better approach to view architecture as a craft. It’s an interesting book, worth checking out (though I’m not sure how applicable it would be to game-craft, though maybe the ideas of accretion and changes over time might be particularly relevant to RPGs as opposed to other types of game).

TomasHVM:
I’m quite comfortable viewing game-design as both craft and art. Those terms are not at odds with each other.

As for viewing “all ideas as crap”; why take such a position; it lacks the nuance of reality. And I do not see it as very constructive either; you may work as hard to make your ideas grow into a beautiful work of art, even if you consider some ideas to be the golden nuggets you need to believe in your work.

My final response:
Ahh, I think it is empowering to think that all ideas start off weak. I believe all strong ideas start as weak ideas that have been carefully developed and nurtured. It’s a mindgame for me. The problem in thinking that there are “great concepts” to be discovered, is that I end up constantly seeking “better” design concepts in lieu of actually taking a “good enough” design concept and developing it into something “great”.

To be clear, I’m not saying all ideas are *equally* crap. I’m just saying that all initial concepts have major problems that need to be resolved through hard work and diligent development. Of course, some ideas are worth developing and some are just completely dead on arrival – recognizing what idea has potential is a fundamental task of an effective designer. But after having found a decent starting concept, continually looking for a “better idea” is a recipe for going nowhere. Such a designer just constantly starts over, he will continually waste his time chasing his tail while someone who spends their efforts developing a decent idea will go much further.

Funny thing is that this approach to architecture design in school also applies to architecture craft in professional practice. Its most obvious when you draw up construction details for a building – which is inherently an intimidating task because that is where one’s knowledge (and lack thereof) is most on display. When someone is new to the practice, they won’t know how something is assembled. So when they are tasked to detail something, it is really easy for them to freak out and freeze up while staring at the blank page! I always tell my less experienced colleagues (and often to myself) the first detail is going to be a fucking mess, in fact you’ll most likely draw three or four shitty versions of the same detail before you get it right. But that’s just the way it is, and the sooner you draw the crappy details the quicker you’ll develop a good one.

As I write it out it sure does sound like a strange pessimistic design philosophy…but its worked well for me. Design is a mind game, and I wouldn’t be surprised if other folks have a more optimistic mind game that is better suited for their design process. But mine mindset is all about embracing initial failings and avoiding the a stalemate of overthinking things.

Funny thing is that I don’t at all intend to sound dismissive of the 5-minute exercise – there is a powerful energy in great brain storming sessions and a joy of discovery with all these ideas coming from all directions! All projects start somewhere and loose free-flowing brainstorming sessions are one of the best ways of getting a lot of ideas on the wall. The more ideas you throw up, the more likely you’ll find one that will be a good starting point.

But I’m also keenly aware that the next step will take a lot of work. But hey! The next step always takes a lot of work, so why be a downer? In my last paragraph of the initial post I meant to acknowledge that “yes, I am certain that all those games in the thread had serious issues, but it seems silly to dismiss the 5-exercise for what it isn’t.(a practice of fully developed thorough game design).” I certainly enjoyed the exercise for what it actually was, a collective creative push in throwing things ideas up into the air, a maelstrom of community brain activity.

Also Posted on Boardgamegeek.com

A few months ago when I was on an indie RPG kick, I came across the lovely forum story-games. Its a great place. One of the first posts I did there was part of a “5-minute” RPG challenge. Just come up with a new game…Quick!

The game I came up with is not worth mentioning (few 5-minute ideas are) but I wrote a couple posts that rehashes things I talk about regularly in real life but I don’t mention much online. Because of the length of the posts I am breaking them into two blog posts. This first one deals with the importance of playing with game design but though a very meandering path beginning with ruminations on my profession. The next post deals with why I so greatly value design development.

Late in the discussion TomasHVM, the initiator of the 5 minute challenge wrote:

I have the impression that a lot of those posting a game in the challenge, “published” their first game in that thread. And that too, to me, is significant. Putting a game out there is something very special to do. Having finished and published a game, however small, brings you to a new level of thought as a game-smith.

From this I take that a bunch of game-smiths have taken a small, but significant, step further by meeting the challenge. And that makes the challenge a small part of the greater movement of developing role-playing games for the future. To make role-playing games grow as a form, we need to have a good supply of new blood. Challenges and competitions are ways of inviting new blood into the ranks. Having more game-smiths actually turning out games for people to see, is great for the culture. It infuses it with new thoughts and greater confidence, and helps raise the intellectual level of discussion. Being peers with hands-on experience in design, is a good fundament for constructive dialogue.

Here was my initial post to the discussion:

Like all architects, I have an tortured relationship with my own profession . On the one hand, I have a very strong professional pride, with specialized skills and knowledge which I utilize to proudly earn a living. On the other hand, there are enough atrocities in the built environment, usually by architects, that I question the value of our profession when it comes to pure design. If you boil things down, the government recognizes us as a special profession because they think it is important that buildings are designed in a way to give its inhabitants an opportunity to safely escape the structure in the event of a fire. Officially, aesthetics isn’t a factor.

But still, I want to think that all my years in school and aesthetic training means something more than expeditious fire escapes! In my travels I have been to some awesome spaces designed by justly famous architects…but I have also been to some awful spaces designed by equally famous architects. My current office is in a skyscraper by I. M. Pei with cramped lobby and an insipid urban plaza! When I think about the built environment, the places that evoke my fondest memories are organic vernacular growths – the market street near grandma’s apartment in Hangzhou, a quiet residential street in Berkeley, the surging density of Manhattan, a nondescript cafe in Paris.

What’s missing in architecture school – and thus in much of our professionally designed environments – is a healthy respect of the fabric of our environments. The occasional iconic structure is important for our civic pride, but a city of icons is nothing but a jumbled mess – a jumbled mess that suppresses the expression of a vital social life.

However, other arts are not concerned with the vernacular fabric that surrounds it. We go to an art museum to experience great iconic paintings, not to ponder the torrents of mediocre visual productions that fill our dentists’ office. You don’t need to worry about audience participation, you don’t want the fat drunks in the stands to actually affect the results on the basketball court. It means nothing to the great artist when the random plebe dabbles in their art, Kobe doesn’t give a shit if you shoot hoops in the driveway after a long day at the office. In some ways, games fit in this type of individual art. There are great iconic games with great designers, and it doesn’t really affect their lives nor change their art if their audience occasionally dabbles in game design.

Then again, story games are not a passive art. This is a social activity, you don’t sit there and just watch pixels dancing on the monitor, you have to get in and participate to make it worth everyone else’s while. A great movie is still awesome in a half empty theater, but with these games, if the audience is flat the end product will be weak – no matter matter how awesome, how elegant, how conceptually beautiful the game design. Understanding rules and mechanics is merely scratching the surface, and the beauty of these games is found in the moment of emergent wonder when everything snaps together to create a memorable experience. For that to best happen, you need an active, educated and involved community of people who invest themselves into the art.

I presume that the most important way to become a good game player is to practice gaming, but I also believe that it is a useful exercise for everyone to dabble in game design. Instead of working with material that is handed to you, one should occasionally confront a blank page and be forced to come up with something, anything! You learn through designing; things you can’t notice by just playing games. The act of design is a powerful exercise, and even if someone decides that game designing is not to their liking, at least they will walk away with some insight into what it takes to create a game.

I think the difference between some of the earlier, downer comments and Tomas’s enthusiasm boils down to this. Yes, ideas are cheap, and if one was to look carefully at the actual 5-minute games I’d suspect most of them are pure crap. It takes a lot of work to turn an idea into a decent game and even more to turn it into a product worth publishing. But to completely dismiss the exercise is overstating the case. Very few people have the dedication to go through the effort to become an accomplished game designer – this comes with real personal cost. However there are valuable lessons to be learned in designing a game, even in just a few minutes.

This paradox is the essence of the exercise, let’s make the act of designing a game as non-intimidating as possible in order to encourage people to play with the process of designing game. Of course one will earn more valuable lessons with sustained effort, but you gotta start somewhere, and the 5 minute game design was about exactly that.

Also posted on Boardgamegeek.com

For context, I’ve only played this game twice on my homebrew set, and only with my girlfriend. I rarely write reviews unless it has been bouncing in my head for a few days, so I think there is something here.

This game won the first Spiel des Jahres, way back when there weren’t any other SDJ winners. However most folks don’t recommend this game for 2 players, even though the box says 2-6. Even David Parlett thinks his game is best with 4-5. Here is the two player variant on Parlett’s website.

You each start with 95 carrots and 5 lettuces, and move two runners round the board. The winner is the first to get both runners home.
You each play in turn, and at each turn are free to move either one of your runners, but not both. When one of your runners lands on a lettuce square, however, you must use your next turn for chewing a lettuce and the turn after that for moving it away. When bringing your first runner home you may have any number of carrots and lettuces left over, but the usual rules apply to bringing your second runner home. That is, all five lettuces must have been chewed, and the number of carrots left over must not exceed 20 if it comes home second or 30 if third.

I cringed when I read that variant. I hate two player variants that include dummy players or playing two “sides”. It’s inelegant and almost insulting – you’re too lame to get more buddies over so we’ll cobble together this variant for you! Spare me your pity and just print 3-6 on your box! Even worse, two player Hare and Tortoise is anti-thematic. The multiplayer race makes simple sense – get in as early as possible! … But goal of this two player game is to get your second guy in before the other guy gets his second guy in. So first place doesn’t matter?*

_{*This brings up an idea. What if there was a series of races and you scored points for the position? Whoever had the most points after a set number of races wins. Maybe 5 points for first, 3 for second, 2 for third. Or to go with the race idea, whoever gets to set number of points (31?) wins.}

But once you get past all this, you’ll find a game that works very nicely with two players. Let me reframe 2P Hare and Tortoise as a highly tactical resource management, action selection game with a slight chance element. The board is made up of a limited number of action types, mirroring the limited number of action types available in typical action selection game. Each turn, a player choses an action, resolving any resources they may collect from their previous action, moving their piece, paying for the movement costs, and then resolving any actions that are activated upon to their arrival in the new space. During the race, fighting for race placement can have significant effects on your resource generation. There is no engine building, but this game is all about carefully timing the production and expenditures of resources. Instead of racing for the most victory points, you are racing to get your two pieces to the end as quickly and efficiently as possible.

I think that the game’s two player reputation has been hurt by earlier versions of the Hare event cards (unfortunately including the current the Rio Grande release). However, the latest incarnation of the event cards (published in 2008, 2010) has eliminated random movement of pieces – you won’t land on hare space and then get thrown away somewhere else. For a multiplayer game, this type of randomness can be overlooked since you only have one bunny and it’s a more “social” game, but the two player game is all all about manipulating your two bunnies to be in the right spots to cash in on their race order positions. Furthermore, a two player game is directly confrontational and you must be able to get in there and mess with the opponent’s plans. If you cannot predict where your piece will be after it lands on a space, then you can’t plan ahead and there goes the game.

_{For those with the older version of the game I would suggest using the Parlett Strategic variant where landing on a Hare space results in losing a turn. This is a high price to pay, but it may be worth it to mess up the race order and force the other guy to adjust his plans. Please note that this variant turns the game into a perfect information abstract. As such, I prefer the new cards since I like little lighter games and I appreciate how the hare cards have a slight catch the leader mechanism baked in.}

After a couple plays, I can confidently say this game is a great two player game that fits perfectly in that SDJ sweet spot. Sometimes the committee goes heavier and sometimes much lighter, but Hare and Tortoise was well deserving of the honor of being the first SDJ winner and holds its own even after thirty years of game design innovation. For those who have played this game with many players, I hope to join your ranks soon.

Until then, I contend this is a perfectly fine two player game. It is a tight tactical game: it forces you to make tough decisions, gives you room for dramatic moves, but is balanced enough to keep the game close. It doesn’t outlast its welcome, just the right length for its medium low weight while still rewarding skilled play. I might not know how well two player Hare and Tortoise stacks up against its multiplayer version, but I’ve played plenty of two player games and this is a great one.

Update
I have now played a few multiplayer games and find it quite good. I’ve also developed my own variant for the hare cards, using a six sided die instead of cards.

1. Give 10 carrots to each player lying behind you in the race (if any) If you haven’t enough carrots, give them five each; if still not possible, one each. A player who doesn’t want extra carrots may throw them to the carrot patch.
2. If there are more players behind you than in front of you, miss a turn. If not, play again. (If equal, play again)
3. Restore your carrot holding to exactly 65. If you have more than 65, pay extras to the carrot patch; if fewer, draw extras from the carrot patch.
4. Draw 10 carrots for each lettuce you still hold. If you have none left, miss a turn.
5. Free ride! Your last turn costs nothing. Retrieve the carrots you paid to reach this square.
6. Lose half your carrots! If an odd number, keep the odd one.

Originally posted on Boardgamegeek.com

Believe it or not the player count of two through five is actually true!

I pulled it out at my weekly gameday after letting it sit dormant it in my bag for the past three months. My game group is into heavier games, so I had not opened up the game because the rules are so darn simple.

Last night, I wasn’t interested in the open games so I started playing 2P with another player who also likes lighter games with a backup plan sliding into Jambo if it doesn’t work. Jambo didn’t have a chance! We played it a few times 2P. Then we dragged in another player for a couple rounds 3P. And then someone joined for a 4P game and then a 5th player to round out the night.

A quick overview of the game: Hanabi is a cooperative card game with has a specialized deck of five suits: three 1s, two each of 2-3-4s, and one 5 of each suit. The goal of the game and team is to build five straight-flush piles in the center of the table (one for each suit, 1-2-3-4-5 with no duplicates nor jumps in the straights). You hold your hand of cards facing away from you and on your turn you can either tell one of your partners information about her hand, discard a card (to later have the right to give information), or play a card to the table (and hope it is playable cause you only get 3 mistakes before you lose!). The game ends when you either complete all 5 straights (absolute awesomeness), you make 3 mistakes (utter catastrophe), or the deck runs out at which point each player gets one last turn (inform, play, discard). If the game ends with the deck running out, you add up the top cards on the deck to see how well you did.

We had an absolute blast. It is obviously not heavy and dense like Automobile or Caylus, but it is a great card game and a great coop game. It will definitely make you think! Easy simple ruleset, tight complex game.

Because you only have one action a turn (discard, play, inform), turns fly by and because those clue tokens are so damn precious, things get pretty tight after the initial few turns. Even though I generally hate games with a memory element, Hanabi was designed just right and the memory aspect did not bother me at all!

What surprised me is that the game tightens up quite differently with the varying player counts. One reason is because the game clock (the deck) remains the same length no matter the number of players. So if things re developing methodically like a 2P game – but you’re actually playing a 4P game – you’ll get totally blindsided with the deck being emptied out before you know what happened!

It’s also more than game speed – player interaction actually changes with the number of players. For example, the clue tokens run out very quickly in a 5P game, so immediately actionable information and turn order becomes critical. However 2P game can leave you in stuck with a situation where there is nothing to tell the partner and they have nothing to tell you but you’re both too chicken to throw things away, or you get into cycle where you tell your partner something, she acts on it, which draws another card for you to inform and her to play….back and forth and all the sudden its your turn again, there are no beads on the box and you have no idea what’s in your hand either.

I suspect the best way to enjoy this game is to do a straight explanation of the rules and then play a few games with the table developing your group’s own conventions as you go. I wonder if getting 15-19 pts (as we did) is fairly common, but to get past it you’re gonna have to take some risks or else you risk running out of the deck before you’re ready.

Knizia in his heyday had a knack for developing complex games with a simple ruleset (Schotten Totten comes to mind) and this game falls in line with that heritage. Clearly 2010 was Bauza’s year, and while I have been lukewarm on 7 Wonders, if you like traditional-ish card games and you like co-op play, this is certainly worth trying out!

originally posted on Boardgamegeek.com

I’m an unabashed fan of Print and Play versions of both published and unpublished games. Most of these handmade editions get played a couple times and are never touched again, so usually I’m better off spending the money, instead of wasting the time crafting the set. However, I am the happy owner of four commercially produced Decktets, a set of beads to match the suit colors and the book – conducted over four separate purchases.

How did that happen? About a year ago, I stumbled across this curious little deck. The art was well done and the deck had an interesting backstory. I read a few game rules, put it on my wishlist, and then dropped the subject because it seemed pricey for just a pack of cards. Over the past year the Decktet kept popping up among the people I enjoy following. So when the game Magnate had a crescendo of recommendations, I finally dragged out my markers and drew up a deck to see what the hullabaloo is about.

What took me from my DIY handdrawn deck to buying all that Decktet gear? To be honest, it wasn’t Magnate, I can see the greatness of the game but I didn’t fall in love it. Same with Jacynth or Quincunx, which are pleasant mind benders of the tableau variety that also play well solitaire. Nor the best solitaire game, Adaman, which fully utilizes all three card aspects (numbers, suits, and types).

Even though there are good games for the Decktet, the reason I fell in love with the Decktet was because it is it is a fertile playground for designing new games. There are three major reasons that makes it work – it is different, open, and closed. A deck doesn’t need to be all three for it to be the basis of a some good games, but it needs to have all three aspects for it to work as game system that is a fertile basis for new designs.

With any card game, the standard is the 52 card Poker deck with cards ranked 1-13 in four suits (one instance of each card). As Reiner Knizia has shown throughout his career, certain games could use a few extra ranks, maybe a couple more suits, and sometimes a duplicate rank here or there. But four suits times thirteen ranks has created a deck that has kept an awful lot of people entertained over the centuries. If you follow boardgamegeek.com, there are a couple other proposed non-single game specific decks out there – the Rage Deck (1-16, six suits) and the Rainbow Deck – but neither of them have been particularly intriguing because they don’t offer something fundamentally different from a poker deck. It doesn’t help that neither of them are nearly as well drawn, but more importantly, neither of them have the idiosyncratic double suited card system.

Because the 2-9 ranks in the Decktet are systematically suited in a not particularly rational fashion, the deck has a strong personality. However this personality does not exclude visitors, instead it creates limits and boundaries, which allows other people’s creativity to flourish within its confines. The poker deck had created a very nice walled garden for people who wanted card games with systematic comprehensive decks – which is why it is the de facto standard. So if you’re gonna develop a new walled garden, it needs to be something more compelling than a couple extra ranks and few extra suits.

Even though it seems counter-intuitive to combine limits with creativity, as an architect I’ve come to realize that problems are often the best tools in focusing one’s creativity. Boundaries cause problems which force you to tap your ingenuity. Without these limits, your creativity can freeze up and settle for mediocre solutions.

A prime example of too much openness is the Looney Icehouse system. If you look at the Icehouse system there are very few “pure” icehouse games. My favorite pure icehouse game is Tic Tac Doh! which requires no additional components, and does not have a defined board. Aside from that great little game, most Icehouse games include external components or has a fairly complicated ruleset to imbue complexity into the game. The proliferation of external components for that game implies that the system does intrinsically have enough structure that designers need. My lukewarm response to the Icehouse system be mainly due to my strong preference for card games over perfect information abstracts, but the elegance of the Icehouse system and beauty of the physical pyramids becomes muddled by all the other stuff you need to keep handy.

Even though the ranks of the Decktet are simple – six aces and crowns with three instances for ranks two through nine – the asymmetric combinations of suit, ranks, and card types creates a enough variety in the landscape for designers to work without constantly incorporating external elements.

However, a bounded world still needs to be large enough for exploration. Mahjong is basically a cardgame (though much richer experientially with the hard tiles). This funky three suited set with two special suits and four instances of each tile makes for a tight rummy game which deservedly has an intense following in America and in Asia. Even though there are noticeable differences between continents (if you’re familiar with one kind of Mahjong you owe it to yourself to see how nutty the other ways that people play it) all the versions are basically variations on the same rummy game. You just collect tiles into sets and score it when you fill up your hand with melds. Aside from the computer solitaire game, there hasn’t been a proliferation of alternative games that use a Mahjong set. It is just too damn perfect for this one game; it doesn’t suggest anything else. On the other hand, the Decktet is the home to some great games but it is not the perfect medium for any one type of game. It’s got some quirky boundaries and it still has some unexplored corners for people to find some games – it’s open for exploration, but not too open to be uninspiring, and it is certainly different from other decks on the market.

It wasn’t until after a game of Quincux that it struck me why I really love this deck. Playing with the Decktet brought me back into the world of being a kid wasting a summer afternoon away. The internet has been great for people who love card games, but it also made the world smaller and a little less exciting. If there is a good card game to be figured out, odds are someone has done it – and the rules right there on pagat. I love pagat.com, but I noticed that it dampened my interest in coming up with variants to card games just because I can’t shake the nagging feeling someone has already figured it out better. But that’s certainly not the case with the Decktet. The Decktet’s funky structure reinserts just enough uncertainty to reopen the world of playing with designing games. There are already a lot of very good games in on the Decktet Wiki, but who knows, you might just come up with the next one.

A feeding frenzy for two bunnies.

Introduction

This is a light fishing game of capturing cards off the tableau. After the tableau is cleared, the players add up the values of their captured cards to determine the winner.

The game was inspired by my pet rabbit who is by far the most enthusiastic and fastest eating bunny I’ve seen. She has no problems yanking food right out of her partner’s mouth, but is readily aggrieved if she does not get her fair share of the produce.

Setup

Start with a standard deck and deal 24 cards face up to the table in 3 rows and 8 columns.

To ensure a fair start, the starting hands are determined using a “split the pie” mechanism. Each player is dealt 6 cards which they will divide into two piles to offer the the opponent. The division of cards does not need to be equal in either points or in the number of cards. After deciding the split, the players simultaneously reveal the cards face up to analyze. After the players have decided which pile they will take from their opponent’s offerings, they simultaneously reveal their selection.

Each player then combines the pile they have taken from their opponent and with the pile that the opponent did not take from their own offering. They then add up the ranks of the cards in their starting hands (aces are worth 1, crowns worth 10). The player with the fewest points will be the start player. If they are tied for fewest points, the player with the fewest cards will start. If they are still tied, then determine the start player randomly (start position is really not that important).

Play

Each turn a player will play one or more cards to capture a single card on the tableau. A capturing card must share a suit with the card being captured. If several cards are played to capture a card, the played cards do not need to share a suit with each other, but each capturing card must share a suit with the captured card. The rank of the card (or the sum of the ranks of multiple cards) being played must be equal or higher than the captured card. The captured card is then placed in the player’s hand and the capturing card(s) discarded into the player’s own discard piles for scoring at the end of the game.

Aces are worth 1 point but they are wild cards to be used in capturing cards of any suit. However, when they are on the tableau they are still of their own suit and may only be captured by cards showing the suit of the Ace (or by another Ace).

At the beginning of the game, each player will only have access to the cards on their side of the table – the eight closest cards of the eight columns of the tableau. As the players capture cards, they will be able to capture any cards they can access orthogonally starting from their side of the table. After enough cards have been captured, there will be an open path from one side of the table to the opponent’s side of the table. At that point the players will have the same access to the cards on the tableau.

Turns alternate between players. If a player is unwilling or unable to capture a card they may chose to pass, however the game will only end when both players are unable or unwilling to make any further captures The remaining cards on the tableau are removed from the game.

Winning

The players then add up the ranks of the cards in their discard piles and in their hands. The player with the most points is the victor.

If they are tied for points then the game is a draw. We’re looking for calories consumed, the number of bites it took is irrelevant.

Variants

There are different ways to arrange the tableau. I started with a 5×5 grid and also tried a 4×5 grid but I like getting to the point where each player has the same access to the tableau more quickly. A 2x grid was considered but it is too wide for most tales and it merged the playing field too quickly. And yes, the 3x grid was the most “corn looking” of the arrangements.

A variant rule of determining access to cards is to assume that players may not go through the opponent’s side to get to a card. Thus when the path is cut through the tableau, it is not immediately opened up for both players – a player must still be able to chart a path originating from their side through the grid to a card to be captured. However, this approach limits the interaction (limited as it is) and dampens the urgency of the game.

P.D. Magnus has proposed a variant which starts with the center row (of the 3X8 grid) face down. This would certainly help keep the game lighter and avoid analysis paralysis as the original ruleset is a perfect information game!

The extended deck

Unplaytested. One could add cards in and play with a 7X5 grid (5 cards to each player for the initial split). Then the Pawns and Courts could be used either as initial gaps (taken away immediately after setup).

Unplaytested. Using a 8X4 grid (7 and 6 cards to the players for the initial split) you can keep them in the tableau but they are to be played as “converters” with other cards. They would have a value of 0 and would still need to be captured off the board. However, they convert all the cards of a given play into one of the suits on the pawn or court card. If you wanted it to be more complicated you could add the additional restriction that the cards being converted need to share a suit with the pawn or court card.

Thanks

A very serious thanks to my girlfriend who helped me in working out this game. From the beginning I wanted to design a game that included the “split the pie” mechanism (ala San Marcos and Biblios) and I wanted to simulate my rabbit’s frantic eating frenzy. However it took several very different iterations to the two to work together and I certainly would have never gotten there without her critique and pointed questions.

And thanks to P.D. Magnus cause I think that makes him the first to try out one of my decktet games apart from my involvement!

Links

BGG database entry
Initial announcement of Pepper. Corn! on BGG

An arithmetically paired fishing game with the Decktet.

In the Eastern Deserts, the jackrabbits are regarded as a pest and a delicacy. Lesser known is that between eating (and being eaten) they while away their time with a simple fishing game.

As a fishing game, the goal of the game is to capture cards. Each player will play two cards every turn, capturing cards using either the sum or difference of the played cards. The players that captures the most cards scores points for the round. The first player to reach twenty-two points wins the game and is granted the privilege to be the first bunny out for dinner.

The game is a reinvention of the classic Moroccan fishing game Ronda. Aside from using the Decktet instead of the Latin Deck, the game is also played with two cards at a time and bonuses are given for suit combinations played.

Setup

Shuffle the basic deck and deal four cards to each player and four face up to the table. After the initial deal, no further cards will be dealt to the table, but there will be three additional deals during the round (emptying the deck). The same player will be the dealer during the entire round, and the dealer switches each round.

Only the two player version has been playtested, so the two player game is the basis of these rules.

Gameplay

A player will play two cards on each turn.

If the sum OR the difference between the played cards equal the rank of a card on the table, the player captures the card on the table along the pair just played. If there are several cards of that rank on the table, then all cards are captured, a player may not leave any on the table. A player is restricted to capturing only ONE rank per turn, even if a play could capture two ranks. (7 and 3 captures 4 OR Crown but not both).

If the cards played are a pair (of the same rank) they will capture all the cards of the rank just played. (7 and 7 would capture a 7).

If a player cannot make a capturing play, then he or she must place two cards on the table.

When both players are out of cards (after two plays each) the dealer then deals out four more cards to each player. At the end of the game, the last player to capture cards takes the remaining cards on the table.

Bonuses

There are two possible bonuses during gameplay.

Flush – each of the cards (played and captured) share a same suit. The capturing player scores 2 points. (eg 7 wave/wyrm – 3 moon/wave = 4 wave / leaf).

Sextet – the group of cards (played and captured) show one of each suit between them without duplication. A sextet must have exactly one instance of each suit. The capturing player scores 4 points. (eg 4 wave / leaf + 5 wyrm / knot = 9 moon / sun, or any triplet of the 2 through 9 rank cards)

Some warrens will exchange captured cards to keep track of bonus points (ie if you score a flush, the opponent will place two of her captured cards in your capture pile), thus the bonus points are not “scored” until the end of a round. Some warrens do not exchange cards but keep a running tally, thus scoring bonus points immediately and ending the game as soon as a player reaches 22 points.

Scoring the Round / Winning

At the end of a round, each player will count their captured cards. The player with more than 18 cards (half the deck) will score a point for each card in excess (20 cards would score 2 points).

As noted in the introduction, the first player to reach 22 points is the winner. If both players reach 22 points, then whoever has more points is the winner. If both players are tied, play additional rounds until the tie is broken.

Variants

There are several variants that were tested. The most promising one is to deal out six cards to each player per deal (none to the table). It may actually be a better game, but after designing and playing it with the four cards, it felt a little strange to me. It may be in part because I have a numerological a fondness for the current game with 2 pairs dealt, 2 plays per round, 4 deals per round, 22 points per game. However, one could easily construct a cohesive numerical system with 3 pairs, 3 plays per round, 3 deals per round, 18 card goal, and 18 or 36 point games. As such, I would not hesitate to switch numerological allegiances, if this variant is clearly the better game after further playtesting.

A streamlined version (my original idea for the game) is to calculate only the difference between the cards. I think it works but is a little too constricted.

A more complex version would be to allow a pair of cards to capture BOTH the sum and the difference of the two cards. However, I think it adds a little unneeded complexity to the calculations and detracts from the suit bonuses.

Extended Deck (untested)

There is no place for the excuse, but there could be uses for the Pawns and Courts. Both the Pawns and Courts are worth 0 points in summing cards. In all cases, scoring at the end of the round is based off of the deck size divided by the number of players.

A 3 player game could add either the Pawns or Courts making a 40 card deck. Deal four cards to each player and four to the table. There will be three deals in a round. One could just use a standard deck and start with no cards dealt to the table.

A 4 player game could also be played using the standard deck with two deals per round (four cards to the table during the initial deal) but I suspect each round would be a little short and unsatisfying. Maybe this will work better with a double deck.

In a 2 player game, add both Pawns and Courts to the deck for a deck of 44 cards. Deal and play as in the main rules, but there will be an additional round.

Many domesticated warrens are rumored to play a variant called Brulu, using a 40 card deck including pawns. There are no cards dealt to the table during the initial deal and they play to 41 points. Many aficionados consider this the purest way to play.

Thanks

The Blulu variant is a direct nod to the Moroccan card game Ronda which this game is based on. Let me start with my friend Margaret who gave me a Moroccan deck, inspiring me to look into the game and eventually develop a rough draft of the rules (Ronda is surprisingly hard to find on the English speaking internet). I sent these rules to John Pagat who then did an amazing job doing real research and completely rewriting the rules; thus publishing the only comprehensive Ronda rule set in English.

Of course, many, many thanks to my girlfriend who helped me playtest the game – not only Blulu but also Ronda when I was trying to figure out how that darn game worked using fragmented descriptions found on different websites. And to my old bunnies Buster and Lulu, wherever they’re hopping now…

Links

BGG database entry
Initial announcement of Blulu on BGG
Rules of Ronda

Boardgamegeek.com database entry

An asymmetric climbing race game for two.

The tortoise and the hare are staging a series of races!

To be the champion keep shedding your cards first.

Setup

The player who most recently held a bunny shuffles the basic deck, discards two cards (to introduce uncertainty) and deals one face up to each player to be their starting positions for their race tracks.

Take the remaining cards and deal them face down equally to each player (sixteen each). The hare then draws the top eight cards off his deck, while the tortoise draws none (zero). The hare starts first.

Game play

As a “climbing game” the card play will consist of a player leading with a set of cards to his race course (the allowable plays are described in the following section). The second player may then play an equal or higher ranked set of the same type to her own race course. The second player must pass if she does not have a playable set. If the second player passes then the first player may then lead with a set of any type. If the second player follows with a set then the first player may then either play an equal or higher set or pass, giving the lead the the second player. Note: unlike most traditional climbing games, players are not restricted to playing the same number of cards as the previously played set to continue the series.

Racin’
There are three types of sets: Singles, Multiples (groups of cards with the same ranks), and Straights (ascending consecutive ranks of two or more cards). The hare may play as many cards as he desires, but the tortoise may play at most two cards at a time.Note: straights are not required to share a common suit

A set must always be connected to the player’s race course. The first card played must either share a suit, or share the rank, or be of one higher rank than of the top card of his or her race course. Each player’s race course will always remain their own, they will never play cards on their opponent’s course.
At the end of the race, each player’s course should be completely connected from beginning to end. It is suggested that the players announce their plays and mention how it is connected (such as “I play a 6,7,8 straight, the 6 is connected by the sun to the orange crown”)

After the lead, the second player may either pass or play the same type of set and the final card must be of equal or higher rank than the first player’s final card (and yes, it must be connected the second player’s course). Only the final card matters in determining the rank of the set. When a player passes, the series ends and the other player may then lead with any type of set on their race course. The newly lead series does not have any relationship to the previously played sets, but it must still connect to the player’s race track. A player that captures the lead may pass his or her turn, and will still draw the appropriate number of cards from doing so.

Because the hare and the tortoise may play different numbers of cards in a play, the amount of cards (aside from minimum of two(!)) in a multiple or a straight is irrelevant. Even though the hare must follow type, he may always play as many cards as he wishes to the play (ie 3-4-5-6 in response to a 5-6 straight played by the tortoise). Similarly, no matter how many cards the hare plays, the tortoise must merely follow type (ie she may follow four Aces with a pair of Aces or higher)

Drawing cards
As mentioned previously, the tortoise starts with an empty hand. However, she will draw two cards at the beginning of each turn until her deck runs out.

The hare does not replenish his hand regularly, he will draw cards only in three situations:

1. If he passes and has cards remaining in his hand, he will draw a single card.

2. If he passes and has no cards remaining in his hand then he will draw the remainder of his deck.

3. Finally, he will draw the remainder of his deck after the end of the series during which the tortoise draws her last card.
The hare will never draw a card without following a pass. In the second situation, even if the hare won the series where he shed his last hand card, he will still have to pass the lead to the tortoise as he cannot play until he draws his cards. In the third situation, he will not draw the remainder of his deck until someone passes.

Winning
The first player to play all of his or her cards is immediately the winner of the race. If both players are unable to play their final cards, the winner will be whoever has the fewest cards remaining. If they are tied in remaining cards, then the race is declared a draw. The winner of the race scores 1 point for every card remaining in their opponents hand. In the case where neither player was able to empty their hand they score the difference in number of cards between the two remaining hands.

A full tournament of races would involve four rounds with the players alternating as the hare and the tortoise, and see who has the best record. If after four races, the series is a draw, then continue racing and the next winner is the champion badger.

Example 1: Jen plays her last card to her race track and is declared the winner. Brad has 3 cards left in hand so Jen scores 3 points.

Example 2: Angelina and Brad both pass because they have no legal plays remaining. Angelina has 2 cards left while Brad has 4. Angelina is declared the winner of the race and scores 2 points. (4 minus 2).

The extended deck

The pawns and courts could be inserted in the deck, they would rank between the nine’s and crowns. As such the setup would still involve discarding two cards and starting with two cards, but instead of starting with eight cards, the hare would start with ten cards.

If the Excuse has no rank and no suit and is considered lower than an ace. As such it can only be played as the very first card of a series (the one who plays it must have the lead) but it can be played onto any card and any card may be played to follow it. It counts as leading a series of Singles. If you use the Excuse you should discard 3 cards at the beginning of the game.

Credits

Playtested with Jing Gu.

Thanks also to Kenny VenOsdel who reviewed the rules and suggested clarifications.

Links

BGG database entry
Initial announcement thread on BGG