Boardgaming in 2018!

Well, it’s true that if something is, for example, a “deck building game”, then deck building tends to be the focus of the game. You might be trying to quietly steal treasures from a dungeon, or be the best Tyrant in the Underdark, or just racing cars around a track, but you’re still buying and trashing cards and trying to make the best deck. It is a mechanic (or mechanism, if you like), whereas the genre of the game might be more accurately described as “medieval combat” or “renaissance trading”.

And honestly that works for me; if someone tells me a game is a deck-building game, I’m already halfway to learning how to play it. Whether it takes place in a dungeon, or in ancient Egypt probably doesn’t matter very much. Not that I don’t prefer a game where the theme ties in nicely with the mechanics; it’s just that whether or not I enjoy playing a game is going to be based on whether or not the rules makes sense and there’s good strategic crunchiness there (i.e. is it gnarly); not on what time/place it takes place in.

Well those terms are describing different aspects of the game, like theme/setting (WW2), genre/mechanics (Action/FPS/Cover shooter), and budget (AAA) so I guess they’re all useful in arriving at a reasonable pigeon-holing. So I’d say CoD is a AAA WW2 FPS! ;)

And as you know catagorization is not just an issue across gaming, think of music too… so many sub-sub-sub genres and crossovers etc…

Most of these terms refer to a bag of unrelated ideas, like you’re talking about, for historical reasons. You’ll see a similar usage of the word “Abstract”. It was originally used to distinguish games like Chess, Checkers and Go from card games like Poker and Hearts as well as designer games we mostly talk about here. As a consequence, people will refer to a game with a theme as “abstract” because it has a lot in common with games that inspired the term (no luck, no hidden information, simple and short turns, etc.). As a consequence, most of the terms don’t work the way they clearly “should” from a modern perspective. But they’ll probably be co-opted back into a reasonable usage at some point.

I appreciate all the responses, I feel less crazy trying to grok this stuff.

My copy of Kitchen Rush arrived today, and as luck would have it, it’s also our new day for doing boardgaming, so we broke that right out. It is a real-time coop of running a restaurant, a similar idea to Wok Star, which I also own, but more complex and I think more rewarding.

Basically, you start with 3 coins in hand, four orders on deck, and a goal you need to meet in orders filled, money earned, and prestige accumulated within four rounds. Each round, you begin with Prep, where you look at your available orders, ingredients, spices, and cash and try to strategize what you’ll do. Then you go to the Action phase, where you start a timer and have four minutes to take orders, source new orders, fill plates, cook orders, add spices, shop for ingredients and spices, wash dishes, perform office admin, maybe even fill orders promptly…and in addons, perhaps serve wine, clean up for health inspections, or cater to food critics. Finally, when time expires, you finish any action you were actively performing and then move to Cleanup, where you verify your orders are correct and fully fulfilled in order to score them (or lose prestige if you didn’t finish them and possibly waste the effort and ingredients if you made an unfixable mistake), and then pay your staff and maybe even have an operating budget for next turn.

To accomplish these things, each player has two hourglasses. During the four minute action phase, you start the hourglasses going and place them on action spaces. You can immediately take that action - and take as long as you need to to perform it - but you cannot then move or do the action again until the hourglass has emptied. You also cannot share spaces except for shopping. To fill orders you first act as a waiter and take the order (one action per order), with associated plate size or one size larger for each plate on the order. Then you need to assemble the ingredients. This takes an action in one of (up to) three Storage areas, whereupon you can add as many ingredients as you need from that particular Storage. But only that particular storage. if they’re not all there, it’s either a second action in a different one, or shopping (but someone already shopping can add while you’re still in storage.) If you get the ingredient count/set wrong you can still fix it until you start cooking. You also need to take an action to add spices (where called for), which are sourced from a bag - not randomly, but it means it takes time to check what’s in stock and grab them. These can be added at any point in the proceedings. Finally, you have to cook - one action per plate per stage of cooking required.

Of course, all of the above assumes you’re in tip top shape - dishes clean, storage areas laden with all the ingredients you need, and spice bag full of glorious spices. If not, well, it’s an action (and a coin) to shop and obtain - 5 ingredients of a single type distributed as you decide between storage areas; 3 basic spices in any combination; or 2 exotic spices in any combination. (A mini-expansion adds fish, which are bought 3 at a time and expire every round if not successfully used in an order.) Or an action to clean any 3 plates for use. And all of these are happening in real time, with limited action spaces, delays between actions, and simple tangling of arms trying to put things where they need to go.

Oh, and every hourglass you use (including 1-2 Helpers that don’t belong to any player in particular)? Costs 3 coin at the end of a round. Can’t pay? You lose prestige and the use of that worker until you can - and it takes either an office action to rehire them (w/ 2 coin) or having the coin at the end of a round - you must pay back pay if you can.

Our goal was (on easy), 28 orders filled, 16 coin earned, and 8 prestige. We almost hit 20, almost had 8 prestige, and had no money at all, at the end of our second game. (Much better than our first try, though.) It’s rough! And we didn’t even add in the events (all negative), health inspections, food critics, fish recipes (the second time, anyway) or wine.

To join the nomenclature discussion, just because:

Yes the current terminology (thematic vs strategis or euro vs ameritrash) is unhelpful. It doesn’t really describe games as designed, but design philosophies. And those are helpful only once you have figured out what they are and which you tend to like. But they are not descriptive. In a sense, I think only wargames, or consims, are clearly delineated through the regular categories. I had never heard of waros, as described in the bgg link above. That’s insane and perhaps a shorthand for light-wargames-players-of-mostly-euro-games-like.

I like to think of my games in terms of four axes (although the second and third have some overlap):

Optimal strategy through state machine analysis vs. statistical analysis: this is my way to refer to the luck/no luck issue. While many “euros” use some random systems, those systems are either not very important or hard to predict and work with. The optimal way to play is an analysis of what’s in play and of the discrete and deterministic operations you can realize. “Ameritrash” tends towards the need for statistical analysis, that is to play taking into account uncertain outcomes and thus having to manage luck and risk since any single dice throw (for example) can make an all or nothing plan go awry. The statistical analysis type of games has fallen out of grace from a lot of designers and players tastes (except for wargames) but a lot of that is I think because people are bad as statistics and see anything that relies on luck as random (distributed and managed luck is the opposite of random and can generate more interesting problems imho).

Aggressive vs. passive-aggressive player interaction: While all games have a degree or player interaction (or they are solo games) there’s a very clear distinction between denying the other player choices because of turn order (what I term passive-aggressive gameplay) and directly affecting his/her own game state. Player elimination is an extreme case of aggressive interaction.

Conflict through player actions vs. conflict through game systems: the extreme version of a systems game is a solo or pseudo solo co-op game, where there are a series of systems the player needs to understand to perform at the game. Opposition through player actions also needs understanding of the systems, but a big part of the game is to read what the other’s players will do and play mind games with them to win. This is different from luck or random elements, which is purely statistical, since it takes into account the knowledge you have of other players and their likely behaviour. Normally it includes some sort of hidden information to make it work, but it’s not strictly necessary.

Experience vs Play: Is the game just a game (a process of mastering a system against opposition) or does it try to say something else? I mean with this convey a narrative, an experience, simulate a real situation or make an statement about something. This is the usual Thematic vs abstract category, but slightly wider.

Then you have the usual mechanical distinctions (deck building, worker placement, perfect information…) but for me those are less important unless we are talking about a novel mechanic that makes the game stand out (that is, my liking of a game has to do more with the combination of axes and the overall coherence of the design than with specific mechanics being present or not).

This is just my way of looking at it, but I find it useful when thinking whether I will really like a game beyond the ooooooh-shiny infatuation period. For example, conflict through game systems and state machine analysis along with passive aggressive player interaction (or co-op/solo games) is something I just don’t get to enjoy much after some plays unless it has a big experience element (Pandemic, which I dislike vs. Pandemic Legacy, which I adore) or aggressive player interaction (so I can create some had-hoc conflict through player interactions and basically move the conflict axis a little).

I mean, they kind of are, on a very high level. I like to think of it as Fantasy Flight v Reiner Knizia. FF (Ameritrash) is all about modelling everything about the game’s theme with its own system, to a degree that often seems absurd at first. But when it meshes well with the theme and the systems have good interactions and are balanced, then the philosophy really shines. Euros/Knizia games, at least archetypally, use theme primarily to determine what art to use. There is one, or maybe two systems in the whole game, and they’re not really modelling anything, though they may represent it in a fairly abstract way.

Of course, neither of these tells you anything about how a given game will play, other than that an Ameritrash game is likely to be fiddlier (not always true though!).

The fiddliest designs I have encountered as of late (Robinson Crusoe, Gloomhaven and Vast) are all eurogames mostly (Gloomhaven is a hybrid but it does market itself to that market). And those three also have pretty somewhat strong theme-mechanics integration (or at least strong theming). Note that I do like them (Gloomhaven I’m still unsure, but I’m mildly positive so far, although not ecstatic, but the other two I enjoy greatly).

I think you are right in that they were descriptive definitions perhaps 5 or 10 years ago before the hobby exploded and many designs that don’t really fit as well (and that work) were released. If anything nowadays I think they describe better how a game looks and is spatially organized during play than anything else about it.

Thinking about it, the fiddliness aspect might be a consequence of the design arms race when games are play driven (as opposed to experience driven) and the market is saturated. To make you game stand out you can either bring a new mechanic in, or combine existing mechanics in new systems. Once a new mechanic comes out it is quickly combined with existing ones to create new games (like how deckbuilding seems to be everywhere now) but once the simple combinations run out, you need to start creation more and more complex systems to make your game not a “reskin” of another.

This is not only for euros. System driven wargames (wargames that tried to apply the same system to different situations) also suffered this long ago, and might be why a lot of contemporary wargames are more experience driven (less translatable or with big changes in systems when changing setting).

@Juan_Raigada forgot Wargames vs. Trifles: Wargames are game designs which try to model a historical conflict using systems such as hexagons and counters to represent actual factors that likely contributed to the outcome of the conflict. Trifles are anything else.

Seriously, the contributions to the nomenclature discussion here seem much more helpful and easier to parse than the BGG ones, which I guess is unsurprising. As far as your boardgame explorations go, @WhollySchmidt, you might want to keep a list of what games you really liked and a short note about why you liked them. It’s pretty easy to go from there to find similar games which might give you a higher hit rate than just looking at games recommended because they are “highly rated” somewhere.

As for me, I’m going to give Phil Eklund’s Greenland a shot tomorrow night at the Lucky Lab game night. Anyone in living PDX is welcome to come heckle me.

Weekly meetup introduced me to Roll for the Galaxy. Thumbs up!

Walmart has OG version of Pandemic for under 20 at some stores. Check Brickseek if interested

https://brickseek.com/walmart-inventory-checker?sku=24017055

So just got back from a 6 player game of Dune. Excellent game, went 11 turns and an alliance of Atreides/Bene Gesserit/Emperor won - that combo of money plus battle prediction abilities was unstoppable. Playing as the Harkonnen I squandered too much spice early, but I did manage to set off the Family Atomics on a well-timed sandstorm and destroy over enemy 20 troops in the two cities.

We had to spend some time finagling over some of the fine details of the timing of abilities, but we had a pretty good FAQ which helped.

Anyway, another good play of a classic.

So last week on Tuesday night I tried out Gloomhaven for the first time. I had a similar experience to others like Tom where we got our asses kicked from not knowing how the systems worked. This left me with a worried feeling that maybe the game wasn’t for me. But we tried again last night (different gaming group) and did the first mission at level 0 to get the hang of things. After that we were able to go up to the proper level and played 2 more missions. 8 hours of gaming awesomeness.

I am now totally sold on this game - it is just brilliant. Don’t get deterred by your first game not going well. You really want to avoid putting things in the Lost pile for as long as possible (even through use or resting too often).

Is anyone attempting to play the game so it is replayable, by using removable stickers? I’ve played Pandemic Season 1 and 2 so they are not replayable, but I was curious if anyone tried it with Gloomhaven.

I think I may need to preorder this from my local board game store. They said they could order it for $140.

It seems like they produced a lot of copies in this last run. They shouldn’t all get sold as preorders - as in copies should still be available on / after the release date, right?

It is already replayable - it doesn’t change in the ways that Legacy games do. But I believe there are a couple folks here who have or were planning on getting the stickers. Not sure if those folks currently have the game or have had a chance to try them, though.

I don’t see why it’s not replayable out of the box. Just print one of the campaign tracking sheets from BGG and you need stick nothing on the board. Or put the stickers the FIRST Play through and just keep track next time.

All other cards need just be removed from play, and the only “spoilers” lost would be the character classes, which frankly I want to unlock faster because it just enhances gameplay even more to have more options for the group.

I still think it’s darn near the perfect dungeon crawler and it won’t be leaving my collection anytime soon.

You know what’s dumb about Gloomhaven? Well, one of the things that’s dumb about Gloomhaven?

That the map is a mounted board.

Why isn’t it something you can roll up? Why mess around with the getting sticker in the stupid breaks or the creases where it folds? Why not just give us a folding poster? It’s supposed to be something to reference between games and there is no reason it needs to lie flat and sturdy like an actual game board. Before I played Gloomhaven, I had never seen a boardgame where I wished something wasn’t mounted instead of wishing something was mounted.

-Tom, self-appointed Gloomhaven nay-sayer extraordinaire

I had a similar thought when I pulled the board out for the first time.

“Oh, this is cool! What do I do with this board? Oh, I… add stickers to it for the scenarios I’ve unlocked? Huh… Seems like that could have been accomplished on a worksheet with checkboxes…”

-Bradley, still likes Gloomhaven

I’m a huge GMT fan and lately I’ve gotten some good plays of Labyrinth in. On the more casual side of GMT Wild Blue Yonder has been a great fascination as well, talk about something with a bunch of campaigns I can’t wait to dive into. Wild Blue Yonder is also great for one off dogfights. Amazon had First Martians down to 20 odd dollars so I sprung for it and now I just gotta see what kind of hot mess it really is. I’ve also been looking at the Conan boardgame the mechanics seem pretty interesting and I love large asymmetry between players. Maybe I’ll even play Vast one day.

Tom Mc

Agree completely. I wish it was smaller too, like A4 size. It’s such a pain to pull out every session, especially with limited table space.

Do you know how long it takes to play the game to completion? :) You probably aren’t going to get a chance to replay it…