The Tao of Gaming

I have a new XBox and regional Bridge tournament this week.

I'm not in the cult of Werewolf ... but if a game took 10 minutes? I just got to try Looney Labs' Are you the Traitor?. The game went over like a lead balloon; but I liked what I saw.

RUtT combines Werewolf with a favorite of mine, Kutschfahrt. The great gimmick (in both cases) is that an accusation ends it. Neither game can drag on. If the accuser is correct his side wins. In RUtT's case, you win or lose that round, and each winner gets a treasure card.

But the core is the round. You get dealt one of four roles:

• Keyholder (Good)
• Guard (Good)
• Traitor (Evil)
• Wizard (who knows?)

The wizard(s) reveal, the others keep their roles secret. Each wizard gets a "Good" or "Evil" card.

Once the roles are revealed, the round continues until one player points to another and yells "stop!" (or whatever).

• The keyholder wants to give the key to the good wizard. She ends the round by pointing to a wizard and yelling stop. If the wizard is good, the good team wins, otherwise, evil wins.
• An Evil wizard wins by point to the keyholder. Anyone else, and evil fails.
• Guards win by capturing one of the traitors. (Presumably if they attack the evil wizard directly, they get smashed).
• Traitors aren't allowed to make accusations.

But here's the catch, and why our game didn't go over so well. In the 4 player game, you have one of each role. But when you get more players, then you get some additional information. Every non-wizard knows who the keyholder is (the wizards close their eyes). And all the traitors know each other.

So traitors want to tell the evil wizard who the keyholder is. But if they just come out and say it, the guard will nab them and they lose. Either wizard wins if the keyholder points to them, but they can both claim to be good, but if evil figures out the keyholder, he can win.

My group didn't like it, but partially that's because you have to figure the rules out ... quickly. In fact, I 'won' one round because everyone was pausing, and I realized that another player had enough time to figure out a reasonable-odds gamble but hadn't acted, so he was probably the traitor (who can't accuse). Sadly I misremembered the rule on who I should I accuse. Still, it was like one of those math puzzles where, on the 38th night all the wives murder their husbands. (If you don't know, don't ask).

In fact, my chief concern is that each round will be too fast. The keyholder can make a 50/50 accusation at any time. Guards can usually get the same odds on someone as a traitor (since they'll know the wizards, and keyholder, if the game is large enough). Perhaps their should be a slight penalty for the false accusation (beyond not being on the winning team).

The other concern is that each member of the winning team gets a treasure, which are worth 0-5 points. 10 points wins. That's pretty random for such a clever game (and there are a few treasures that let you steal other treasures, except for those that block it). In the one hand, that's easy to remove, but it also means that you will sometimes sway between palatable accusations, because you may set things up so that if you are wrong, the leader will be on the losing side.

I've added "Play RUtT with 6 or more" to my gaming To-Do list. And I don't particularly care for Werewolf. If you like it, I imagine RUtT a must try.

Update: There may be a rule I'm forgetting, like "Good wizards also win by capturing the traitors" ... we only played 2-3 rounds and I didn't get every role down pat.

You can peruse the list at his site. Seeing as how I've only played one of them, I shan't comment.

I've played many more of the Meeple's Choice nominees, but I still couldn't bring myself to vote for three. (I voted for Battlestar Galactica and Cosmic Encounter .... yes, the latter is based on the Eon version. Sue me). I'm tempted to vote for Dominion (played several face to face games this weekend) ...

Update: And Rule #1 of the internet -- Snark begets Snark. (Rule #2 is that snark quality has no genetic component).

I first saw David desJardin's "Dice chess" on r.g.b, I think. For those who haven't heard of it, it has the following rules.

1. Play a game of chess
2. Both players roll a die, the winner of the chess game gets to add +1 to his roll.
3. Hi roller wins.

This came to mind when I was playing Hanging Gardens again (after playing it once a year ago). Hanging Gardens has the clever spatial building mechanic to build towers, but then the reward for building a tower is a tile draw and tiles score via set collection. Sometimes a cheap tower gets you a great tile, sometimes a great tower gets you nothing. Pretty random. You also have a card draft and sometimes the last player will always get an OK tile, and sometimes the first player gets nothing good.

All the skill gives you a bonus on your die roll. To be fair to Hanging Gardens, skill probably gives you +2.

Coupled with some cards that practically guarantee a tile versus terrible cards that can barely be played, I really should hate this game instead of being lukewarm towards it.

Now, I can understand the appeal of the luck ... people with poor spatial grasps have trouble with this game, and would get pummelled if you just scored some formulae for how big each section you built was. Still, it feels hacked on. I don't see how you can categorize a game as dice chess and like it.

• "Settlers of Catan," and
• "Insert gratuitous Nazi reference here."

Courtesy of the Onion's avclub.

I do like the following comment on Cities and Knights:

Hitting upon the excellent idea of removing all the compelling simplicity of the original version, he crafted a game that was just as strategically and tactically challenging, but also ridiculously overcomplicated

I then noticed that the author lives in San Antonio, and complains that nobody here is hardcore enough to play C&K. The mind boggles.

So I tune into the US Bridge Championships and see that Meckwell are playing ... six spades redoubled (making, but can't get an overtrick). Next hand they jump to an ambitious four hearts, get doubled and ... redouble. This time the overtrick is there, but their opponents run ...

I can't recall seeing two high contracts redoubled in one session, much less back to back. (Of course, Meckwell are way behind, and taking big risks...)

(Rodwell's hand on that slam was AKJT98653 -- 9 A94)

Buy a Wii. UFC Undisupted is indeed sweet (albeit with insanely complicated controls for the ground game).

Played a lot of Face to Face Dominion for the first time. I've certainly played a lot on BSW, but I'm starting to enjoy the 'real' game. I'll certainly trade for a copy now. Also got in a game of Through the Ages, and managed to self destruct when I sacrificed my army to get a colony that provided enough yellow tokens that I could easily rebuy the people in one turn. I forgot I wouldn't have enough ore to rebuild the units for 2-3 turns. And two turns as whipping boy is one too many. I managed to recover somewhat and had a huge run in the end, despite only producing 4 ore a turn at game end (and one of those was via a trade agreement). Lots of mineral deposits, patriotism and military build ups (6 civil actions by mid game, 8 by mid Age III).

Also played the "Ace of Aces" book game. Exactly how many games use that exact same system? Ace of Aces, Blue Max, Richtoffen's War (which, I'm told, the Ace of Aces people used to build their book). There's a miniature version of Blue Max I've seen (the players had never heard of Blue Max, but their rules were identical, down to the damage chits).

For all my complaints about Small World, there really is something nice about a game where the vast majority of your turns take less than a minute.

Qwirkle isn't growing on me, per se, as much as making me want to play Scrabble. But its not bad.

Caylus Magna Carta is still hitting the table; and I'm completely sold that it is superior to straight Caylus (for replayability).

Blue Moon continues to amuse.

Happy June 1st.

Played Battle Cry again, which just reminds me why Memoir, Battle Lore, and C&C are such hot commodities. Still, I prefer Battle Cry (with a bit of handwaving to update the card deck).

Also played a few of the "good every now and then" card games, like Castle, Gargon, and Ark. Ark is still a touch too long.

And I spent hours trying to fix my computer. For some reason Firefox crashes after 3-4 minutes -- this was a known issue in 3.0.9, but I've got 3.0.10. Fortunately the 3.5 Beta seems stable, but if anybody has any ideas (hint: mozcrt19.dll) on what to do, I'm listening.

From time to time I get inquiries about buying ad space here. (This makes me rethink capitalism, so I'll give you a moment to goggle and wonder).

In general, the answer is no. Unless you can make me break down like Crusty the Clown ("They drove a dump truck full of money up to my house! Waaa!") I'm not interested, for a variety of reasons but mainly because this is my hobby and I've seen too many people sucked into making it a profession and it rarely ends happily.

I think I've mentioned this before ... and the great and powerful Oz agrees.

Regarding Qwirkle ... it may have one more level of expertise than I thought. You can set up plays to block Qwirkles ("Bingos" in scrabble, earning a bonus for long plays) and tile tracking plays a role, but as it is (to my mind) a filler I doubt I'll ever make the effort during play to do much beyond score as many points as possible.

Our second game of small world had a high variance between scores, so that's good. I still feel that the same criticism of Vinci (you just pound on the leader) is still there in Small World (you just pound on the perceived leader). In a strong group, the difference diminishes. To whit, in this game I lost 6 provinces to Berserking Ratmen (Aaiiiee) on the final turn, and lost by ... 2 points. So, kudos on proper assessment of the leader board to all involved. I like that this is smaller and faster, but think its a bit too small. I'd like a few more races/abilities. I'd like a game to have maybe 3-4 civs per player. Also, you definitely want a starting auction for player order, I think. There are some brutal combinations and many mediocre ones.

Finally played a four player Le Havre. I liked the new buildings (The arts center and storehouse) that aren't used in the 2-3 player games. I keep seeing arguments about how there are multiple loan paths to victory, and all I can say is that I've yet to encounter it. Yeterdays game had me get up to 8 loans quickly, take a ninth loan reluctantly (and get mildly hosed because an entry fee kept me from getting a 10th loan when I really wanted it), and then earn ~90 Florins from two shipments (mainly Coke and steel) to pay everything off. I think I need to emphasize to new players that you want to build powerful buildings, valuable goods and ships, and feeding your people is definitely your lowest priority. I'm ready for more variability .... in addition to buildings, maybe a mini-deck of "How the world works" cards that change a rule (before setup). Off the top of my head — roll a d6:

1. Urban Renaissance — Flip up two special buildings at the start of the game.
2. Poor Urban Planning — Deal the buildings into three piles as normal, but only partially sort. Make sure that buildings 1-10 are first, 11-20 and next, and 21-30 are last, but do not sort inside those groups.
3. Credit Crunch — At the start of the game, roll a d6 and set it on the loan number. Any loan taken beyond that only provides 3 Fl instead of 4 Fl.
4. Credit Crisis — Interest payments equal 1/2 the number of loans you have, rounded up. [Perhaps this should be 1/3rd].
5. Dark Ages — After dealing out the standard buildings, randomly remove one building from the middle stack. It just won't be built. [Do not remove Brickworks, but anything else is fair game]
6. Financing Burden — Any player with 2+ loans is considered to have one less "(Marketplace triggering building)" symbol. Any player with 4+ loans is considered to have one less "Fishing" symbol. Any player with 6+ loans is considered to have one less "Hammer" symbol. These effects are cumulative. [Numbers may not go negative].

You get the idea. Just tweak a base rule for some variability. Obviously hitting loans is an easy idea.

I'm also ready to tweak a few buildings:

• Cokery — No money for conversion.
• Tannery — Increase limit to 8.
• Brickworks — No reprocessing brick to brick.

(The cokery is my effective fix to the colliery, as well). I think this is justified because Coke ships for huge amounts and triples your energy. Getting 20 Coal, converting to Coke, and shipping 18 of it (using 2 to pay costs) still gets you 90 Fl, down from 110 Fl. But if you'd only shipped 9 of it, you'd get 45 Fl, down from 65 Fl.

I increase the Tannery because converting Hides to Leather doesn't give you food (like the Smokehouse or Bakery), all it does is give you a shippable good. This way you can get enough leather to support 2-3 ships at once.

... discovers Settlers of Catan. Interesting article, mainly for unit numbers and a few anecdotes and the fact that I can apply to be a professor of boardgames at Curtin University of Technology in Perth. (To be fair, its taken me two months to notice this article).

Among the facts given:

• Rio Grande games sold over half a million units last year (of all titles), and claims growth of 30-35%.
• Settlers has sold 15 million copies so far.
• Settlers sold 600k copies in the US last year, up from 450k.

I dispute, however, the statement that the Settlers of Catan novel is "a must have for [siedlers] legion of fans."

[H/T] Newmark's Door

(Two new games in two days...its almost like I'm a gamer).

Basically scrabble with symbols. Clever, but I prefer Scrabble with words. Still, a nice change of pace and worth trying a few times.

The plus side is that this can be played with children (My youngest can read, but certainly can't build words from a random handful of letters).

I finally played it and it's an evolutionary upgrade to Vinci. Simpler base rules; I don't mind hidden VPs (in theory we could track them, but nobody does), no problem with fixed # of turns, although perhaps 1-2 more turns might be nice. Nicely compressed.

But my instinct proclaims that smoothing the hard edges made Small World ... not worse exactly, but flighty. Superfluous. Neutered. Is it really better to have everyone pounding on the perceived leader, rather than the actual leader? Halving cost to skip over a civilization makes diving deep for a good combo easier, not a gut wrenching choice. With scores so close, did my plan matter, or did I roll slightly better/worse later on? (Early luck tends to be corrected by the group, assuming they judge the leaderboard accurately).

On one hand, Small World feels like a denser Vinci. But I feel a disconnect between playing well and winning. [One other player commented that all the games our group has played have typically had 2-3 points between each player, and our game was 89-87-85-83]. This is just a gut feeling, but one that I never felt with Vinci.

I like the reduced gametime, but wonder if it's at the cost of gameplay. In some sense, that's silly, since the games are nearly identical. But with only 9 turns you have the first turn and last turn (both somewhat odd in that you can't hit other players effectively) and 1-2 declining turns, you really only have 5-6 'full' turns. Imagine chess as all opening and endgame, but with the same rules. Again, I'm overstating it ...

I can't explain this yet. I didn't dislike Small World, but ...

I have that song stuck in my head, so hopefully I'm not alone anymore.

Over at SABG, folks are discussing new game orders and I realized -- I don't have new games I'm pining for. I mean, I'd like Dominion: Intrigue (but I haven't bought Dominion: Dominion yet). The Race expansions is obvious. But ... I already have Vinci. I'd like to play the Martin Wallace new stuff, but I'm lukewarm.

Part of this, no doubt, is just showing my street cred as a curmudgeon.

I think I'd buy Shadow Hunters (if it were to suddenly appear on the store). That seems like one of those games that will survive 10-15 plays, even if it doesn't set the world on fire. But that hardly qualifies as pining.

Should I be pining for anything coming out? Anything recent?

Playing with a random partner on BBO, I pick up.

AQ96 AJ7 A2 A542
Said partner opens 1 Diamond, then rebids them over my 1 Spade. Deciding to a) give up on science and b) play the hand, I bid 6NT.

	85 K3 KQJ853 K96
5 led		Q played
	AQ96 AJ7 A2 A542

With the carebear lead, you have twelve tricks. But that's no big deal. [A spade, three hearts, six diamonds and two clubs.] On the fourth diamond, RHO (having followed three times) graciously tossed the queen of clubs.

I was happy because I saw that the spade finesse for the overtrick wasn't necessary. Since RHO has shown the QJT of clubs, I can just play all my diamonds, cash the king of hearts, lead to the spade ace, keeping the following.

	8 - - K96
[Bored to tears]		K -- -- JTx
	Q J -- Ax

On the lead of the heart jack, dummy pitches the spade and east is squeezed. If he pitches a club then I play the ace, cross to the king and win the overtrick with the 9 of clubs.

In a just world, RHO would have had the spade king (or west would have had it singleton), but sadly west had the king and friends; no squeeze. And this was surely the babiest of squeezes, instantly obvious and requiring no work.

But, I take satisfaction out of the fact that it was instantly obvious to me. [To see tough squeezes ask Jeff ...].

This is why some people like golf ... one good shot makes up for a pathetic round.

Played a few games of Agricola, including a five player game.

I'm pretty much sold on Agricola. The five player game hit all my negative points ... five players, crappy hand versus good hands. I still enjoyed it.

A few more games of Phoenicia, and I'm still high on it.

A few face-to-face Dominion. I'm getting tempted to pick up Dominion and Intrigue, under the assumption that the new cards won't be on BSW.

Playing lots of bridge (as you may have guessed) and I'm fuming at my inconsistency. Today I placed an opponent on a 5141 distribution and defended accordingly.

Holding A4 J8762 KJ86 63,
You hear (and participate in) the following bidding. I'm sitting west, this hand. (The board was flipped when it arrived and nobody noticed until after the hand).

East South Me  North
--------------------
1C   X     1N  2S
3C[1]3S    P   P
P


[1] Just competing .... (you hope). [Yes, I should play Good/Bad 2NT to cover these situations.]

So, what do you lead?

	QT87 3 QT543 QJ7
A4 J8762 KJ86 63		J63 K5 A2 AT9542
	K952 AQT94 (7 K8

I led my top club. We got one club, two diamonds and a spade to hold three spades to three. But the computer (double dummy) analysis swears we can set 3 spades (looking at all four hands) with perfect play. With perfect knowledge I should have just started with the ace of trumps to protect my heart tricks. But that still isn't clear to me. Letting 3 spades make was worth 1.5.

Time for another monster.

AKJ86 KQT86 A Q4

As I gazed happily at this formidable collection ... partner opened 1 Diamond. I responded 1 Spade ... and partner bid 2 Hearts.

Amazing.

Pd Me
--------
1C  1S
2H  4N*  [*Roman Key Card in Hearts]
5H* 7H** [*2 Aces] [**See below]

Partner held Q AJ94 KQ975 A65

Of course my 7H bid was way too fast. If partner really can reverse, then she should have a) 16+ HCP and b) 5-4 in the reds, which means that I should consider 7 No-trump, to get those extra ten points. But I just figured that she probably had a stiff or two small spades, and then we'd need to ruff to set up my spades. I think 5N-6D;6S may ask for the spade queen but that's easy to interpret as "long spades, picking the slam" so perhaps 7H or shooting 7NT is a practical bid.

My opponents were bitterly complaining about their bad luck to have us bid a grand. But honestly, I'm not sure how I can stay out. Assume I bid hearts first (which may correct). I can see something like this.

1D  - 1H
3H* - 3S [*not strong enough for 3S splinter]
4C  - 4D
4S  - 4N
5H  - 5N
6D  - 6S* [SQ ask]
7D  - 7N

In any case, nobody found Seven No trump, and half the field missed the grand. One missed the slam.

The last hand is embarrassing.

West deals, N/S vulnerable.

	J94 3 AKQJ642 KT
Q73 KQ984 9753 A		AK6 J652 8 QJ872
	T852 AT7 T 96543

Honestly, I can't remember if West opened or not. I do know that we got to four hearts, and that north bid 5 Diamonds. I think West passed, North opened, I doubled, west bid 2D, North bid 3D, west bid 3H, North bid 4D, I bid 4H and then North bid 5D.

But maybe west opened and was worried that she'd shaded it.

Clearly someone should have doubled. Sigh. So we got 2 points on the final board, instead of a clear top.

Anyway, in looking back on the session (from a few weeks distance) it wasn't quite as interesting as I'd made out, although there were still plenty of bizarre little hands....

AKJTxx -- KQJT98x --

More amazingly, this hand sat when partner got doubled in 5H. The things you see online. (Although, the player self-listed as intermediate which means that I sympathize instead of mock).

Update: Just to make clear, I was serious about sympathy. Partner opened 1 Heart. Our beginner jumpshifted to 2 Diamonds and then bid 2 spades over the (expected) 2 hearts. Now opener (self-listed as expert) bid five hearts.

I understood what he meant by that ("I have good hearts but two club losers"), but I didn't a year ago.