What is Normal

It's springtime, and I'm looking out my window at a snowy ground on a cold, dreary day. I thought we were past snow by this point in the season, but apparently not. This whole spring has been very odd; we've been alternating between nice summer-like weather and this. My new job is largely dependant on the weather; when it's cold and unpleasant, my shift is usually cancelled. This, like our current weather, takes some getting used to, but like any new job it takes a bit of time to adjust to what is 'normal' for that business. Mostly, it's the little things that take the most time to learn; things are done in a certain way, and it isn't always explained to new employees. The basics, like running the till or how to request time off are covered, but the minor things that are just done a certain way, the minor specifics, need to be learned as you go. Working at a new business, especially when it's in an industry that you haven't worked in before, really helps to highlight those minor differences groups have.

It's the same when learning a new game, or when playing with a new gaming group. Learning the mechanics of a game is comparatively simple to learning what the common tactics and play styles (the 'metagame') is for that game and that group. That is to say, you can easily be taught what moves are legal, but learning what moves are good takes time and experience. The varied metagames for groups is particularly apparent in board games that use an auction mechanic. In most other games the metagame is confined to deciding on the best moves on a given turn and prioritizing resources. The importance of certain resources at different stages of a game can be explained to new players, as can the optimal moves, but providing new players with specific values for auctioned items can be difficult.

If it is an item that can be sold for a profit later in the game, you can gauge its worth by how much it will sell for (i.e. don't pay more than what you will sell it for), but you can't do that when the item being auctioned is more abstract, like turn order. How valuable is going first? It varies so much that pinning down a specific value is next to impossible. Mercante and Masterpiece auction off items that are then sold for a profit; the games provide values associated with the auctioned items, such as the 'true' value of a painting or the price of goods at the market, and these values can help new players estimate what a good bid would be. Meanwhile, Planet Steam has players bidding on turn order and platforms, the value of which is highly subjective.

This subjectivity is especially obvious when a new player joins the group; after playing a game a number of times, a group establishes its own 'market value' for abstract game elements, but a new player, who is unfamiliar with their metagame, can shake things up considerably by over-valuing and over-bidding compared to what the group is used to. When one or two players consistently bid higher than what was considered 'normal' it can completely change things; suddenly auctions become much more expensive, and even when a 'true' value is provided, if a player is willing to have smaller profit margins the entire table has to adjust to compensate. It is difficult for the values to go down, however; consistently underbidding might have players second guessing their high bids, or the low bidders will simply have to make their own adjustments if they want to collect anything.

Many game reviewers look down on auction mechanics, finding them tedious. I find them to be a useful tool, and many games have added interesting restrictions to keep the game flowing, such as minimum bids, or blind auctions. Mercante, for instance, has a once-around-the-table bidding system, which eliminates drawn out bidding wars; either you out-bid the last bid, or you pass, but you never get to up your bid. The auction mechanic is especially interesting when played with a variety of groups; is this group a bunch of penny-pinchers, or are they willing to break the bank to go first?

13/13

A Quick Change of Plans

Last week I got sick. I lost my voice at the end of my work week, and it came back just before my next shift. It was a lovely weekend of miming and being reduced to a whisper. Unfortunately, with my new work schedule, plus getting ill, my post last week went up late. I'm still trying to get used to this new schedule, so the post is also late. This was not my plan when I started this blog.

I've certainly played many games where my initial plan was ruined. Sometimes it was just the luck of the dice, while sometimes it was my opponents shutting me down. Regardless of how it happened, the question always became whether or not I could change strategies in time to catch up. I usually couldn't.

It's not an easy thing to do, especially when my strategy early on does well. Getting an early lead is great, but often that rush style needs to be followed up with preparations for a longer game, just in case the quick win falls flat. Otherwise, a loss is all but guaranteed. Games of Magic: the Gathering are particularly indicative of this, where rush strategies are often compared to a flip of a coin: either those decks win early, or they lose horribly. There is no middle ground, and a good aggro deck doesn't usually have the tools required to survive a late game; it's all-in, and every card is there for the quick win. If their opponent survives to find their an answer, the rush deck has basically lost.

I've certainly struggled with trying to change strategies in other games, too. In games like Eclipse, Planet Steam, and a lot of resource management games, I so often focus on one strategy, and when it falters I don't usually know what to do. I've spent too many resources, committed too heavily on a particular plan, and, like the rush deck, I no longer have the ability to do anything different. Collecting a diversity of resources and leaving yourself open to that change in tactics is clearly the way to go in these longer games; I just have a bad habit of tunnelling in one plan. I will aggressively collect one resource, which will become devalued as the game goes on. My economic bubble will burst, and then what can I do?

This isn't really a problem with these games, though. It's just my approach to them that is the problem. I do have a lot of fun gobbling up sheep, or minerals, or water, or whatever resource I have (over)valued in a game, but I know from experience that unless I can trade these resources away for moderate value, it will end badly. Some games leave this option very open; Settlers of Catan has its ports, Ad Astra has cheap trading with the bank, and Lords of Waterdeep have quests for each resource. Each of these games makes it easy to adapt and change your strategies by making each resource roughly of equal value, and somewhat interchangeable, throughout the game.

Meanwhile, games like Puerto Rico and, to a lesser extent, City necessitate specific resources at specific times in the game, and if you find yourself unable to get the resources in the correct order, you will struggle. In games where resources are best collected in a certain order each time you play, I have to question granting access to these resources to players randomly throughout the game, especially if there is no way to swap what you have for what you need.

At least for the player who built the aggro Magic deck he chose what cards to include. Without any sort of agency over what resources you can collect, or at least some ability to get what you need when you need it, you can be shoehorned into a bad strategy for the whole game. Some variation is welcome in these games, making resources occasionally harder to get early on helps to prevent a game from getting stale. But this is best when balanced with some way to adapt strategies and to change plans on the fly.

13/13

The Replay

Replay value is often toted as one of the most important considerations when making or buying a game. This is usually equated with variability; the more ways subsequent games will differ, the better. Modern games have been latching onto this idea by implementing elements such as modular boards, assorted scenarios, optional cards, different roles or factions, and so on. Even the concept of a board game expansion emphasizes the idea that a game is more fun when it offers something new and different each time you play.

This make sense; that feeling of discovery is great, and games with assorted ways of playing do well in reproducing it. This idea, though, that a game without all of these extras is somehow inferior has become so ubiquitous that it seems strange to see a new board game these days that doesn't have modular components of some sort. As things are now, adding in something like a modular board is perceived as being a trivial addition and is, in some consumer's eyes, mandatory for a game to be worth even considering. I know I've taken less interest in certain games because of that, which is unfortunate.

With that said, however, changing the board, or the scenario, or even what cards are being used from game to game is clearly not a requirement for an enjoyable game, or even for a successful game. Games like Go and Chess haven't survived for as long as they have because they encapsulate that 'new game feeling' every time you play. Enjoying these classic, high strategy games is far more about mastery than variety; playing them is far more akin to solving a puzzle. The sense of discovery that is implemented in modern games by changing how you play instead comes from moments of epiphany, when things click and you better understand the game. The replay value comes from getting better at the game each time you play.

Still, the modern, modular game is likely far more sustainable in the current market than a static strategy game, though this is perhaps a self-fulfilling prophecy; the more modular games that are created, the more gamers will expect them, and the more it will be associated with what a game 'should' be. Classic-styled games that do not incorporate a 'modular' element could get pushed out of the market entirely; as it is I am hard-pressed to name any that have come out recently; Knight Moves comes to mind, but it is already ten years old.

Couple this shift in the market with the ability for companies to constantly create new content for their popular games, and the gaming market starts to look like the movie industry: a sea of sequels, remakes, and spin-offs. Just look at popular titles like Carcassonne, Settlers of Catan, and Munchkin, to name a few. Each one not only has a multitude of expansions to modify the game, but each one also has whole spin-off games and re-themed versions. It is a robust business model, with far fewer risks than creating brand new titles, so it is no surprise that it seems to have been adopted by nearly every game publisher.

Now, don't get me wrong, I really do enjoy modular games. It really is a big selling feature for me, and I do feel that it is a simple, effective way for a gamer to get more out of their game. Expansions, too, are a great way to rediscover an old favourite. My concern here is really more in the style restrictions that have been placed on designers; it is expected that games have to be expandable to be successful; they must be modifiable and provide drastically different game play every time you open the box or no one will be interested. But really, there is room in every gaming collection for strategic, non-modular games like Chess, Go, and Knight Moves. They have remarkable replay value, and mastering these kinds of games can be very rewarding. Plus, since they don't have a pile of expansions, they will leave plenty of room on your shelves for other games, too!

13/13