Over on spielfrieks, the yearly discussion appears. "Am I Jaded?"
People play games for a variety of reasons:
- Hanging out & socializing — In this case, the game doesn't matter, although good beats bad. Lighter works better. Nobody considers Die Macher a party game.
- System Analysis — "What if I go here?" "What if I do that?" Lots of Euros have an interesting system; but often it's a small variant. Tbe Puerto Ricos and Caylii of the world get praised to high heaven for having an interesting system that feels fresh. Or at least fresher.
- Telling a story
Over the last week, I've realized that story matters much more to me than I'd credited. I've always known that my tastes don't run to pure abstracts, but my internal monologue matters more than I thought.
And the new batch of Euros? There are some interesting systems. And the themes aren't just tacked on. I think Thurm und Taxis feels like setting up routes in Europe, etc etc. But when I'm playing a game, I don't say "Ooh, I just set up Bavaria!" Mechanics? Fine (if a bit shopworn). Theme? Yes. Story? No. There's no growth, no arc. I'm just winning or losing.
A few examples from last week.
I played War of the Ring (with the Will of the West Variant). The fellowship tap-danced to Mordor. The game neded up closer than I imagined (since I slowed down to play it safe), but in looking back at the game, I can say "Frodo and the fellowship went through Moria while Isengard went after the Grey Havens (!!!). Bypassing Lorien, Gandalf sacrificed himself to keep the fellowship safe and then the Witch King showed up to finish of the Havens and then Rivendell...." I can discuss the game without reference to the mechanics, although people who have played can fill in the blanks.
I also played 7 Ages. A long, chaotic game (with lots of take that) is a recipe for disaster, and I forgive all. One player founded the Romans and I promptly started the Saxons and the Goths, only to have the Goths switch from barbarians to housekeepers. Then my Persians got evicted by the Babylonians. The right play would be to end their empire and start another. The fun play? Vow vengence and destroy Babylon. After a few turns of buildup, I caught the Babylonians napping (I switched them from a production to another turn, perhaps destiny). I got to proclaim "You forgot you are scheduled to be conqured." and then took their homeland, when a volcano wiped them out of Persia. Thus vindicated by the gods themselves, I returned home.
This, by the way, took five hours. I enjoyed it. And I enjoy retelling the story.
I enjoy Twilight Struggle even though it has flaws (and boy did they show up in spades last week). Here I Stand gave me 3 decisions per hour and I still want to try it again because of theme. [I think 3-player would work nicely for face-to-face].
My two "I really want this from the prize table" picks were a very mechanic heavy game (Indonesia), and a good story/party game (Cash 'N Guns). [I got the latter].
I'm not going to play a greatly themed game with a system I actively dislike. But a good story with mediocre gameplay trumps a good game with no story. Mechanics certainly matter, but I've played hundreds of games with reasonably good mechanics.
Does this make me an "American" style gamer? I don't know. Right now I've been more fond of games that avoid the 60-90 range. The shorter games have more bang for the buck, and the longer games have better stories. Mechanics are also easier to get right. Story is a taste.
I'll try to do a final summary later tonight or tomorrow, and then I'll review some games.
Update: Welcome people sent by Alfred. When groveling under his gentle dictatorship, consider how best to correct his minor mistake. I did not get a copy of Indonesia. I wish.
The key seems to be to get past play 5 with a "story" game. Twilight Struggle is cool, but for me the game itself isn't interesting or strong enough to get to 10 plays. Given it's a $60 game, that's not great. On the other hand, Hannibal: Rome vs. Carthage and Middle Earth: The Wizards are IMO the complete package and endlessly replayable.
Meanwhile I find a game with a middling theme but strong systems like Tower of Babel may not be as interesting for the first couple plays, but last a lot longer and maintain a high interest level.
I guess I'm saying that for me, and I imagine for most people, it's a complex formula that needs a little bit of everything. Unless one area or the other is truly outstanding, a failure somewhere will condemn the game to the trade/sale pile. If it's a competition between a game with a good system and a medicore story (say, Coloretto, Clans, Carcassonne, or Wallenstein), or a good story and a medicore system (Betrayl at the House on Hill, Il Principe, 7 Ages), my choice will always be for neither. If those were my choices, I'd get another hobby.
Of course I'd like a game with a great story and system.
But I seem to pick the old story game over exploring the new system games. That reveals a preference.
I almost wonder if "story" and "strategy" are somehow related. Can the individual moves be synthesized into a larger whole that has meaning on its own? Did I win the chess game because I dominated the light squares or because I calculated all responses for 6 moves?
Brian taught me to play Beowulf by saying we are the unsung helpers, and that made it sound really cool. I've heard it described as a series of auctions, and that sounds deadly dull.
The pinnacle of chess play, IMHO, is a battle of ideas or stories (although I'm not at that level myself). I think your central pawns are weak, and you think they are strong.
A lot of people who live 7 Ages seem to like it for the experience of playing, which I take to mean they enjoy the story they tell. It's like an alternate history.
I like session reports when they have only minor references to the mechanics. Maybe one or two critical moments are analyzed mechanically in terms of the rules, but otherwise it's about the flow of ideas aka story.
Lots of rambling there; I think topic is pretty interesting.
tmk
When Gary Kasparov lost to Deeper Blue, he wrote an article about one of his games. It was in the end game, and Deeper Blue made a pawn sacrifice. Kasparaov saw the pawn sac would ruin his pawn structure, although he couldn't see any forced wins. In post-mortem, it turned out that the game tree had grown so small at that point that Deeper Blue had been able to calculated all variations to the point that the sacrifice was more than regained.
Here we have Kasparaov giving meaning to the position (telling a story, sort of). Deeper Blue, by contrast, isn't finding any meaning, rather it mindlessly applied the mechanics of chess to all possible variations.
Taking this wild speculation off into the stratosphere, it seems that chess and go have found a sweet spot where a fairly simple rule set can give rise to rich "meaning".
I guess the "most fun games" (whatever the hell that means) are ones where the "story" and mechanics are intertwined and interesting.
I could be way off base with this whole thing, but it's a darn interesting topic.
D'oh! How did that happen? A correction is in the mail.
But then, I like abstracts, and I tend to think of euros as descendents of two separate "camps": abstracts and family games. Those with strong roots in the former will have many of the characteristics of pure abstracts, including the potential for an arc of some sort.
The gist of the "Jaded?" thread that I started (but really as a proxy; it was going to happen) was focused on the narrow issue of systems and how fresh or interesting they appear. And I just don't see much on that front that's inspiring me right now, though apparently you're more optimistic. What I'd like to sort out is whether the games themselves aren't breaking any new ground (whether in terms of freshness or of synthesis/refinement into a more perfect form of an existing system, either of which I'm happy with), or if it's just me.
As for game systems, most Euros are more evolutionary than revolutionary. No big surprise there, that's probably true of most endeavours (Hollywood had a surprise hit? Expect 100 imitators. Actually, many movies imitate misses...) I don't think I see anything really new.
[Although I love being called optimistic. Didn't I say the vast bulk of new games were inoffensive? Damning with faint praise was my intent].