So, Games in Community is finished. A very interesting class, and I learned quite a bit.
Most of what I learned was about game designers. We talked to multiple in class.
I learned that game designers make "dozens of dollars" from their games, and that there's almost no way to make a living as a game designer without creating a viral hit like Settlers. But I also learned that you don't need to make money from your games. You can make games as a hobby.
I also learned that there isn't a huge barrier to entry to the board game market. If you like making games, and are willing to put the time and effort in, you can probably make games. Publishers are friendly (Well, why not, it's not like designers are going to cost them much). But, essentially, if I wanted to make games, I could.
In conclusion, an awesome class. I love board games.
Thursday, January 30, 2014
1/28/14
Today, I played a new, interesting game, created by whose name escapes me.
It was similar to settlers in some respects, but very different in others. It is a 4-player game with teams of two. Players build cities to gain resources and gold every turn, which they can use to buy more cities, roads, armies, or tiles. Armies can destroy other armies, cities, and take over tiles, but are expended upon use. There are two ways to win: gaining 4/7 of the tiles, or building up a tower in the middle to completion. We didn't finish our game.
Some of the game mechanics felt arbitrary, for example, there was a limit of 4 cities, which was reached in the first few turns. It felt very arbitrary. The tower in the middle. Why did it make us win? The tile taking over and tower control seemed very different objectives. But if a team could win one, they could also win the other. There wasn't too much strategy; spam cities at the beginning, armies at the end. The resource gaining was also difficult. A city got the resource on its tile plus 2 of the others adjacent east, west, north, or south. Too many choices here, but not enough in other places. Players did mention in feedback that some sort of defensive structures would be nice, to give some variety in the endgame.
The rules were relatively clear, but gameplay was somewhat difficult, especially resource collection. Further revisions of the game are needed.
It was a pretty friendly game, but frustration was had when trying to figure out what resources to get.
In conclusion, a decently fun game, that needs future revisions.
It was similar to settlers in some respects, but very different in others. It is a 4-player game with teams of two. Players build cities to gain resources and gold every turn, which they can use to buy more cities, roads, armies, or tiles. Armies can destroy other armies, cities, and take over tiles, but are expended upon use. There are two ways to win: gaining 4/7 of the tiles, or building up a tower in the middle to completion. We didn't finish our game.
Some of the game mechanics felt arbitrary, for example, there was a limit of 4 cities, which was reached in the first few turns. It felt very arbitrary. The tower in the middle. Why did it make us win? The tile taking over and tower control seemed very different objectives. But if a team could win one, they could also win the other. There wasn't too much strategy; spam cities at the beginning, armies at the end. The resource gaining was also difficult. A city got the resource on its tile plus 2 of the others adjacent east, west, north, or south. Too many choices here, but not enough in other places. Players did mention in feedback that some sort of defensive structures would be nice, to give some variety in the endgame.
The rules were relatively clear, but gameplay was somewhat difficult, especially resource collection. Further revisions of the game are needed.
It was a pretty friendly game, but frustration was had when trying to figure out what resources to get.
In conclusion, a decently fun game, that needs future revisions.
Tuesday, January 28, 2014
1/24/14
Today, I played Werewolf.
Werewolf
Werewolf is a card game of mystery. If you've played Mafia, it's very similar. At the beginning, each player randomly receives a card. A few players are werewolves. Most of the players are villagers. Some villagers have special powers. For example, the hunter, when killed, gets to chose someone else to immediately kill. There are two teams, werewolves vs. villagers. Each round, everyone "goes to sleep" (closes their eyes), and then different people "wake up" based on their role. The werewolves choose someone to kill, the villagers with special powers use them, and then everyone wakes up together. The villagers vote on one person (one special power doubles this number) to kill off, and that player reveals their card. The werewolves win when the number of remaining werewolves equals the number of remaining villagers. The villagers win when all the werewolves are dead. I was a werewolf in both the games I played, and I'm terrible at it.
The voting mechanic is very interesting and fun. Everyone's trying to figure out who the werewolf is. And if you get suspected at one point, you're probably going to get killed off. So you have to balance the accusations and the defending. Human psychology game.
The rules are very simple, and nobody really has to even think about them. The special powers do need some explaining, however.
A ruthless game where friends turn on friends, and the slightest movement can get you in trouble. Relatively competitive.
In conclusion, a fun twist on Mafia.
Werewolf
Werewolf is a card game of mystery. If you've played Mafia, it's very similar. At the beginning, each player randomly receives a card. A few players are werewolves. Most of the players are villagers. Some villagers have special powers. For example, the hunter, when killed, gets to chose someone else to immediately kill. There are two teams, werewolves vs. villagers. Each round, everyone "goes to sleep" (closes their eyes), and then different people "wake up" based on their role. The werewolves choose someone to kill, the villagers with special powers use them, and then everyone wakes up together. The villagers vote on one person (one special power doubles this number) to kill off, and that player reveals their card. The werewolves win when the number of remaining werewolves equals the number of remaining villagers. The villagers win when all the werewolves are dead. I was a werewolf in both the games I played, and I'm terrible at it.
The voting mechanic is very interesting and fun. Everyone's trying to figure out who the werewolf is. And if you get suspected at one point, you're probably going to get killed off. So you have to balance the accusations and the defending. Human psychology game.
The rules are very simple, and nobody really has to even think about them. The special powers do need some explaining, however.
A ruthless game where friends turn on friends, and the slightest movement can get you in trouble. Relatively competitive.
In conclusion, a fun twist on Mafia.
Monday, January 27, 2014
1/23/14
Today, I played Stone Age.
Stone Age
Stone Age is a temporary worker placement and resource gathering game. Players take turns placing workers in various places: resource gathering, food gathering, and benefit gaining places. Then the players take their workers back, gain the benefits, and the next player in the order starts placing their person down. Certain buildings and cards that you can buy give players victory points. The player with the most victory points at the end of the game wins. In the game I played, I won.
The worker placement mechanic is used to very good effect. Gameplay is fun and balanced. There's not a whole lot of bad moves you can make, just good moves and very good moves. The mechanics fit together well; they create a cohesive experience. Many strategies can be pursued.
The rules were very simple, and gameplay was smooth. There were basically no questions about rules.
It was a pretty friendly game. There was some blocking done to me to prolong the game, but I could still benefit myself through other actions. You can mess up people's strategy, but this is usually very short-term.
In conclusion, a very fun, simple, game, with interesting use of worker placement. I really want to get this.
Stone Age
Stone Age is a temporary worker placement and resource gathering game. Players take turns placing workers in various places: resource gathering, food gathering, and benefit gaining places. Then the players take their workers back, gain the benefits, and the next player in the order starts placing their person down. Certain buildings and cards that you can buy give players victory points. The player with the most victory points at the end of the game wins. In the game I played, I won.
The worker placement mechanic is used to very good effect. Gameplay is fun and balanced. There's not a whole lot of bad moves you can make, just good moves and very good moves. The mechanics fit together well; they create a cohesive experience. Many strategies can be pursued.
The rules were very simple, and gameplay was smooth. There were basically no questions about rules.
It was a pretty friendly game. There was some blocking done to me to prolong the game, but I could still benefit myself through other actions. You can mess up people's strategy, but this is usually very short-term.
In conclusion, a very fun, simple, game, with interesting use of worker placement. I really want to get this.
1/22/14
Today I taught Forbidden Desert and played Shadows over Camelot.
Forbidden Desert
Forbidden Desert is a cooperative game against the board. Players play as a group of adventurers who were going to excavate a ancient city in the desert, but become stranded in a sandstorm, with their only hope of survival being a ancient flying machine. Players take turns moving, clearing sand, excavating, and picking up pieces of the machine. At the end of each of their turns, players draw storm cards, which either move the storm (and add sand) force players drink some of their precious water, or make the storm more powerful. The players win by getting the pieces of the machine to the takeoff platform. The players lose by having one player run out of water, too much sand piling up.
The storm fighting the players is an interesting mechanic, but it feels too easy early on, and too difficult later on. It also seems unfair when the cards that force the players to drink get stacked together. Some games are just impossible to win, and some are difficult to lose. But that middle section is tons of fun. Trying to get out of the desert before the sandstorm overwhelms the players, gives a sense of urgency to the game.
The rules were pretty simple for the most part, the mechanics fit together decently. There is a real sense of being in the desert; after I ran out of water and we lost, everyone was thirsty.
The game is a friendly cooperative game. There was little argument over what we should do. We all worked together to try to survive, and we all lost together.
In conclusion, a fun game, that takes a little while to get a feel for.
Shadows over Camelot
Shadows over Camelot is a cooperative game of adventure and questing. Players go to different points on the map, completing quests and trying to defend Camelot from the forces of evil. Completing quests gives white swords, failing them gives black swords. The players win if they gain 7 white swords before 7 black swords. My teacher messed us several rules, got annoyed at us if we didn't understand, and simplified things so the game made less sense. I'm hoping he just had a bad day.
Perhaps a different teacher would have made the game more fun. But for this experience, the game was confusing, long, and asking questions were discouraged. Much of the game was searching through the rulebook looking for rules, and we still didn't get many of them right. A bad playing experience.
In conclusion, a game that is probably more fun than I had when I played it today.
Forbidden Desert
Forbidden Desert is a cooperative game against the board. Players play as a group of adventurers who were going to excavate a ancient city in the desert, but become stranded in a sandstorm, with their only hope of survival being a ancient flying machine. Players take turns moving, clearing sand, excavating, and picking up pieces of the machine. At the end of each of their turns, players draw storm cards, which either move the storm (and add sand) force players drink some of their precious water, or make the storm more powerful. The players win by getting the pieces of the machine to the takeoff platform. The players lose by having one player run out of water, too much sand piling up.
The storm fighting the players is an interesting mechanic, but it feels too easy early on, and too difficult later on. It also seems unfair when the cards that force the players to drink get stacked together. Some games are just impossible to win, and some are difficult to lose. But that middle section is tons of fun. Trying to get out of the desert before the sandstorm overwhelms the players, gives a sense of urgency to the game.
The rules were pretty simple for the most part, the mechanics fit together decently. There is a real sense of being in the desert; after I ran out of water and we lost, everyone was thirsty.
The game is a friendly cooperative game. There was little argument over what we should do. We all worked together to try to survive, and we all lost together.
In conclusion, a fun game, that takes a little while to get a feel for.
Shadows over Camelot
Shadows over Camelot is a cooperative game of adventure and questing. Players go to different points on the map, completing quests and trying to defend Camelot from the forces of evil. Completing quests gives white swords, failing them gives black swords. The players win if they gain 7 white swords before 7 black swords. My teacher messed us several rules, got annoyed at us if we didn't understand, and simplified things so the game made less sense. I'm hoping he just had a bad day.
Perhaps a different teacher would have made the game more fun. But for this experience, the game was confusing, long, and asking questions were discouraged. Much of the game was searching through the rulebook looking for rules, and we still didn't get many of them right. A bad playing experience.
In conclusion, a game that is probably more fun than I had when I played it today.
Wednesday, January 22, 2014
1/21/14
Today, I played Power Grid.
Power Grid
Power Grid is a game of electricity production. Gameplay consists of buying factories and fuel, and supplying cities. For the number of cities you supply, you get money (more for more cities). It sounds simple, but it's not. We didn't get very far; it took a while to set up and explain, and then we only had 45 minutes left.
The mechanic of spending resources each turn to power your cities was interesting. But some of the other mechanics didn't feel like they fit together so well. Maybe things would move more smoothly later in the game.
Gameplay is relatively complex. It started to get better as the game went on, but no one's strategy really came to fruition, obviously.
The game was pretty friendly, people helping each other out trying to figure out strategy.
In conclusion, a fun game, but one I really need to finish to get a feel for.
Power Grid
Power Grid is a game of electricity production. Gameplay consists of buying factories and fuel, and supplying cities. For the number of cities you supply, you get money (more for more cities). It sounds simple, but it's not. We didn't get very far; it took a while to set up and explain, and then we only had 45 minutes left.
The mechanic of spending resources each turn to power your cities was interesting. But some of the other mechanics didn't feel like they fit together so well. Maybe things would move more smoothly later in the game.
Gameplay is relatively complex. It started to get better as the game went on, but no one's strategy really came to fruition, obviously.
The game was pretty friendly, people helping each other out trying to figure out strategy.
In conclusion, a fun game, but one I really need to finish to get a feel for.
Game Host Self-Assessment
So, last Tuesday, I taught San Juan. For class, I now need to do a self-evaluation of my teaching.
What did I do well?
I feel like I did a really good job explaining the basic rules. San Juan is a game that makes sense to me, so I felt like I could explain things organically, according to the goals of the game. We had to do an open hand round, but after that, things went very smoothly. The rules in this game seem complex at first, but fit together like a puzzle, and are quite logical. It simplifies teaching that San Juan is such an open-ended game; there are many possible strategies. I didn't have to give a lot of help in that way. This was listed as a "very difficult" game, but it seemed very easy to me.
How could you improve the next time you teach a game?
I don't know that there's anything I could really improve. Maybe experience playing will show me some things, but everything went pretty smoothly. Perhaps I could give more advice on strategy to people who were a bit slower. But I think everyone was having fun, and there's not really a way to get stuck in the game; a player can only really go a bit slower than everyone else.
Has your approach to gaming changed in any way?
No, I consider this teaching to be a complete success.
What did I do well?
I feel like I did a really good job explaining the basic rules. San Juan is a game that makes sense to me, so I felt like I could explain things organically, according to the goals of the game. We had to do an open hand round, but after that, things went very smoothly. The rules in this game seem complex at first, but fit together like a puzzle, and are quite logical. It simplifies teaching that San Juan is such an open-ended game; there are many possible strategies. I didn't have to give a lot of help in that way. This was listed as a "very difficult" game, but it seemed very easy to me.
How could you improve the next time you teach a game?
I don't know that there's anything I could really improve. Maybe experience playing will show me some things, but everything went pretty smoothly. Perhaps I could give more advice on strategy to people who were a bit slower. But I think everyone was having fun, and there's not really a way to get stuck in the game; a player can only really go a bit slower than everyone else.
Has your approach to gaming changed in any way?
No, I consider this teaching to be a complete success.
Tuesday, January 21, 2014
1/20/14
Today, I played Battlestar Galactica: The Board Game.
Battlestar Galalctica
This game is based on the titular TV show. Gameplay is between two teams, the humans and the cylons. Players loyalty is determined twice, once at the beginning of the game, and once halfway through what would be a human victory. Cylon loyalty is dominant, so once a cylon, always a cylon. Humans win by moving far enough, using jumps. Cylons win by destroying the ship before they get there. A player's turn consists of moving and taking an action, and then drawing a crisis card. Crisis cards have a few different effects, but in general, they sometimes move the jump marker closer to a jump, activate or add enemy ships, and mostly have skill check that humans must pass (while cylons sabotage) in order to not get the negative on the card. There are supplies, boarding parties, civilian ships, and more. It's a very complex game. It took about 30 mins just for the teacher to teach it. I became a cylon in the second half of the game, but we didn't finish. Things were looking pretty dire for the humans, tho.
The unknown team mechanic makes things very interesting. Suspicion is cast everywhere. It is fun to play on both teams, and the game mechanics give a sense of immersion; humans actually out in space trying to escape cylons.
The rules are complex, but once you learn them, flow together well. There were a couple hiccups, but overall, things went smoothly. The game mechanics sync up nicely.
The game has quite a bit of randomness. But the situation still feels organic. After all, just about anything can happen in space. The game is very competitive, and not that friendly as everyone is suspicious that the other players are cylons. Once teams are established, tho, I think things would get more friendly between teams.
In conclusion, a fun game, especially if you like suspicion.
Battlestar Galalctica
This game is based on the titular TV show. Gameplay is between two teams, the humans and the cylons. Players loyalty is determined twice, once at the beginning of the game, and once halfway through what would be a human victory. Cylon loyalty is dominant, so once a cylon, always a cylon. Humans win by moving far enough, using jumps. Cylons win by destroying the ship before they get there. A player's turn consists of moving and taking an action, and then drawing a crisis card. Crisis cards have a few different effects, but in general, they sometimes move the jump marker closer to a jump, activate or add enemy ships, and mostly have skill check that humans must pass (while cylons sabotage) in order to not get the negative on the card. There are supplies, boarding parties, civilian ships, and more. It's a very complex game. It took about 30 mins just for the teacher to teach it. I became a cylon in the second half of the game, but we didn't finish. Things were looking pretty dire for the humans, tho.
The unknown team mechanic makes things very interesting. Suspicion is cast everywhere. It is fun to play on both teams, and the game mechanics give a sense of immersion; humans actually out in space trying to escape cylons.
The rules are complex, but once you learn them, flow together well. There were a couple hiccups, but overall, things went smoothly. The game mechanics sync up nicely.
The game has quite a bit of randomness. But the situation still feels organic. After all, just about anything can happen in space. The game is very competitive, and not that friendly as everyone is suspicious that the other players are cylons. Once teams are established, tho, I think things would get more friendly between teams.
In conclusion, a fun game, especially if you like suspicion.
Sunday, January 19, 2014
1/17/14
Today, our class played a tournament of Cuarenta.
Cuarenta
Cuarenta is the national card game of Ecuador. Four players play in teams of two, each player diagonal from his teammate. Play moves counter-clockwise (Ecuador is south of the equator), players playing a card. If the card matches in certain ways, the team takes those cards. If a player matches the previous player correctly, they score two points; if they clear the table, they score two points. At the end of a round, the total number of cards you've taken can score you extra points. First team to forty wins. In class, we had a tournament, and my teammate and I won!
The matching mechanic is really interesting. Most card games, unless they are board game like, are trick taking. But this mechanic works well. It's a lot of fun.
I learned the rules yesterday. They were explained terribly, but by today I had gotten the rules right. They were simple, and the game only had a few hiccups.
It's a competitive game with luck as well as skill. Our second game was tied 38-38. My heart was thumping hard in my chest. It was such a relief getting that final two points. Knowing your teammate really helps. My teammate and I nailed the strategy, I think, which enabled us to win the tournament.
In conclusion, a fun game that I think should spread from Ecuador.
Cuarenta
Cuarenta is the national card game of Ecuador. Four players play in teams of two, each player diagonal from his teammate. Play moves counter-clockwise (Ecuador is south of the equator), players playing a card. If the card matches in certain ways, the team takes those cards. If a player matches the previous player correctly, they score two points; if they clear the table, they score two points. At the end of a round, the total number of cards you've taken can score you extra points. First team to forty wins. In class, we had a tournament, and my teammate and I won!
The matching mechanic is really interesting. Most card games, unless they are board game like, are trick taking. But this mechanic works well. It's a lot of fun.
I learned the rules yesterday. They were explained terribly, but by today I had gotten the rules right. They were simple, and the game only had a few hiccups.
It's a competitive game with luck as well as skill. Our second game was tied 38-38. My heart was thumping hard in my chest. It was such a relief getting that final two points. Knowing your teammate really helps. My teammate and I nailed the strategy, I think, which enabled us to win the tournament.
In conclusion, a fun game that I think should spread from Ecuador.
Friday, January 17, 2014
1/16/14
Today, I played Amazonas and Cuarenta. Cuarenta was in anticipation of a tournament of it today, so I'll be brief today, and talk about it mostly tomorrow
Amazonas
Amazonas is a game of income cards, settlement building, and specimen collecting. In Amazonas, the players have six income cards, which they play each turn to build settlements which are connected to their previous settlements. Depending on where you build your settlement, you get different specimens. At the end of the game, a player's specimens give them victory points, and the player with the most victory points wins. In our group's game, no one knew what they were doing at first, but my strategy worked in the end, and I won on tiebreaks (which are common since it's a low scoring game).
The income cards were interesting, as it was tricky to figure out how to use them best. The settlement building was also interesting, as you get a card with places on it that you need to build on or lose 3 points, which is a lot in this game.
It took a little while to understand the rules, and as a result, strategy creation was delayed. Gameplay went smoothly once everyone understood the rules, with only a few minor hiccups.
It was a generally a friendly game. The player interaction was minimal, but I almost got a needed settlement blocked out. Luckily I got it.
In conclusion, a fun friendly game of exploration and collection.
Cuarenta
Cuarenta is the national card game of Ecuador. You take the standard deck and take out the 8's, 9's, and 10's to form a deck of 40 cards. It is a card game of matching with two rounds of 20 cards. The rules were not explained well, and it took a while to learn, but we finally got it. My team won. More on this game tomorrow.
Amazonas
Amazonas is a game of income cards, settlement building, and specimen collecting. In Amazonas, the players have six income cards, which they play each turn to build settlements which are connected to their previous settlements. Depending on where you build your settlement, you get different specimens. At the end of the game, a player's specimens give them victory points, and the player with the most victory points wins. In our group's game, no one knew what they were doing at first, but my strategy worked in the end, and I won on tiebreaks (which are common since it's a low scoring game).
The income cards were interesting, as it was tricky to figure out how to use them best. The settlement building was also interesting, as you get a card with places on it that you need to build on or lose 3 points, which is a lot in this game.
It took a little while to understand the rules, and as a result, strategy creation was delayed. Gameplay went smoothly once everyone understood the rules, with only a few minor hiccups.
It was a generally a friendly game. The player interaction was minimal, but I almost got a needed settlement blocked out. Luckily I got it.
In conclusion, a fun friendly game of exploration and collection.
Cuarenta
Cuarenta is the national card game of Ecuador. You take the standard deck and take out the 8's, 9's, and 10's to form a deck of 40 cards. It is a card game of matching with two rounds of 20 cards. The rules were not explained well, and it took a while to learn, but we finally got it. My team won. More on this game tomorrow.
1/15/14
Today I played St. Petersberg and 1812: Invasion of Canada.
St. Petersberg
St. Petersberg is a card game of building and improving resources. The game has a board for organization, but it's not technically necessary. The game goes through four fixed roles. In each, players can buy face-up cards, but in that role, more of that type of card is made available for purchase, and at the end, players collect their income and victory points, depending on what they've already built. My strategy didn't work out, and I got last.
The fixed roles mechanic was interesting. At the beginning of the game, each player was dealt a card which determined which role they went first on. This caused some inequality. For example, I almost never got an upgrade card, because few were ever drawn, and I was always last to choose. The purchasing mechanic worked well otherwise. All buildings had value, and there was a lot of risk/reward when buying.
The rules are not too complex. It takes a little getting used to, and I couldn't really use my strategy well, but we were able to pick the rules up pretty quick. Gameplay was quick and easy. The strategy was more difficult.
The game was relatively friendly, with player interaction coming in the form of competing for cards. Since no one knew how to accomplish their strategy well, the competition was lower. I imagine in future games, the competition would be higher.
In conclusion, a fun game, but I need another playthrough or two to really see how it works.
1812: Invasion of Canada
1812: Invasion of Canada details the US' attempted invasion of Canada in the war of 1812. There are five groups split into the two sides, who each take their turn separately (to some extent). Combat is done through special die rolling as Canada and the US struggle for control. All movement takes place through card plays, and once a card is played, it can never be used again, so the game has a fixed length. My group didn't get close to finishing, but it was clear our team was going to win, as we had conquered a good third of the American land.
The combat was interesting, fun, and fast paced. In the game, many units in battles, instead of being killed, flee or retreat. So control of territories could move back and forth between the sides. My partner and I devised a tricky strategy, which worked, and we won huge victory after victory.
The rules took a while to explain, but they were simple once you got into the game. It was a very cohesive experience. Gameplay was free flowing and easy.
The teams worked very cooperatively and I got to know my teammate better. The game was friendly.
In conclusion, a fun game, one I would like to finish sometime.
St. Petersberg
St. Petersberg is a card game of building and improving resources. The game has a board for organization, but it's not technically necessary. The game goes through four fixed roles. In each, players can buy face-up cards, but in that role, more of that type of card is made available for purchase, and at the end, players collect their income and victory points, depending on what they've already built. My strategy didn't work out, and I got last.
The fixed roles mechanic was interesting. At the beginning of the game, each player was dealt a card which determined which role they went first on. This caused some inequality. For example, I almost never got an upgrade card, because few were ever drawn, and I was always last to choose. The purchasing mechanic worked well otherwise. All buildings had value, and there was a lot of risk/reward when buying.
The rules are not too complex. It takes a little getting used to, and I couldn't really use my strategy well, but we were able to pick the rules up pretty quick. Gameplay was quick and easy. The strategy was more difficult.
The game was relatively friendly, with player interaction coming in the form of competing for cards. Since no one knew how to accomplish their strategy well, the competition was lower. I imagine in future games, the competition would be higher.
In conclusion, a fun game, but I need another playthrough or two to really see how it works.
1812: Invasion of Canada
1812: Invasion of Canada details the US' attempted invasion of Canada in the war of 1812. There are five groups split into the two sides, who each take their turn separately (to some extent). Combat is done through special die rolling as Canada and the US struggle for control. All movement takes place through card plays, and once a card is played, it can never be used again, so the game has a fixed length. My group didn't get close to finishing, but it was clear our team was going to win, as we had conquered a good third of the American land.
The combat was interesting, fun, and fast paced. In the game, many units in battles, instead of being killed, flee or retreat. So control of territories could move back and forth between the sides. My partner and I devised a tricky strategy, which worked, and we won huge victory after victory.
The rules took a while to explain, but they were simple once you got into the game. It was a very cohesive experience. Gameplay was free flowing and easy.
The teams worked very cooperatively and I got to know my teammate better. The game was friendly.
In conclusion, a fun game, one I would like to finish sometime.
Thursday, January 16, 2014
1/14/14
Today, I played Rook, and then taught San Juan.
Rook
Rook is 4-player card game (It can be modified for 3 or 5 rules). Two teams of players compete to score the most points. Certain cards have point amounts, which go to the winner of the trick they are in. The players bid for the ability to choose trump and to swap cards with a hidden nest of 5 cards. If the team the wins the bid does not score as many points as they bid, they score their bid negative. Beyond these basic mechanics, there are many house rules, e.g. what happens if you score more than your bid, what cards can take what, etc. We didn't finish, but over four hands, my team took a huge lead, and then lost it all.
The bidding and point taking work well together. It is difficult to figure out what you should bid, with so many factors up in the air. But in the end, the game stays light, since you might just get a bad hand dealt, and there's nothing you can do about that.
The rules are not too complicated. It takes a little while to get, but once you get the rules, the game moves very smoothly.
Rook is a partially cooperative game. It can get very tense, as there is so much hidden information, and one card can make or break the game. You get to know your partner a bit, and knowing their strategy can be big boost to your game.
In conclusion, a fun team game.
San Juan
I wrote a summary on the class blog:
http://gamesincommunity2014.blogspot.com/2014/01/san-juan.html
The cards as currency and as ability to buy is a very fun mechanic. It creates a lot of valid strategies. It is also nice that all buildings seem to have a good function that helps you. And have a card you don't like, you just spend it.
The rules take a little getting used to, but can be picked up on early in the first game. Things generally go smoothly from there, but forming strategies can be tricky. The rules also introduce some of the concepts of Puerto Rico, and might make playing that game much easier.
It is a relatively friendly game, employing the same passive interaction as Puerto Rico. Players choose roles, which have the same effect on everyone. Timing is extremely important, just like Puerto Rico. Unlike Puerto Rico, there is a lot of randomness. Sometimes you just can't get the card you want, which can frustrate your strategy.
In conclusion, a fun strategy card game. It can be good for preparing people for Puerto Rico.
Rook
Rook is 4-player card game (It can be modified for 3 or 5 rules). Two teams of players compete to score the most points. Certain cards have point amounts, which go to the winner of the trick they are in. The players bid for the ability to choose trump and to swap cards with a hidden nest of 5 cards. If the team the wins the bid does not score as many points as they bid, they score their bid negative. Beyond these basic mechanics, there are many house rules, e.g. what happens if you score more than your bid, what cards can take what, etc. We didn't finish, but over four hands, my team took a huge lead, and then lost it all.
The bidding and point taking work well together. It is difficult to figure out what you should bid, with so many factors up in the air. But in the end, the game stays light, since you might just get a bad hand dealt, and there's nothing you can do about that.
The rules are not too complicated. It takes a little while to get, but once you get the rules, the game moves very smoothly.
Rook is a partially cooperative game. It can get very tense, as there is so much hidden information, and one card can make or break the game. You get to know your partner a bit, and knowing their strategy can be big boost to your game.
In conclusion, a fun team game.
San Juan
I wrote a summary on the class blog:
http://gamesincommunity2014.blogspot.com/2014/01/san-juan.html
The cards as currency and as ability to buy is a very fun mechanic. It creates a lot of valid strategies. It is also nice that all buildings seem to have a good function that helps you. And have a card you don't like, you just spend it.
The rules take a little getting used to, but can be picked up on early in the first game. Things generally go smoothly from there, but forming strategies can be tricky. The rules also introduce some of the concepts of Puerto Rico, and might make playing that game much easier.
It is a relatively friendly game, employing the same passive interaction as Puerto Rico. Players choose roles, which have the same effect on everyone. Timing is extremely important, just like Puerto Rico. Unlike Puerto Rico, there is a lot of randomness. Sometimes you just can't get the card you want, which can frustrate your strategy.
In conclusion, a fun strategy card game. It can be good for preparing people for Puerto Rico.
Tuesday, January 14, 2014
1/13/14
Today, two game developers came in and talked to us. I played one of their games, Digger's Garden Match, and also got part way through a game of Puerto Rico.
Digger's Garden Match
Match is a simple kids game designed to teach geometry, shapes, colors, and pattern recognition. The game is composed of players placing down hexes which have 6 triangles, each triangle having a shape, a number of shapes and a color. Players match shape or color, scoring points for the matched symbols. The game ends when the hexes run out, and the winner is the one with the most points.
The matching was simple enough, and I think kids would love the game. Everything made sense, but I think it was a little too simple for most of the students liking. It was still competitive, and we worked together, to some extent, noticing various aspects of our particular game together.
In conclusion, a fun game, for maybe a couple times. Much better for young kids, I'd imagine.
Puerto Rico
For a while, Puerto Rico was my families favorite game. Even though I know a lot about it, I still learned a new rule about it last night. Players choose roles in order to gain, sell, and ship away goods, build buildings, acquire colonists, and build up production. Shipping away goods and building buildings gives a player victory points. The player with the most victory points at the end of the game achieves victory.
The rules of Puerto Rico are very complex. For most people, it takes a game or two just to understand the rules, a few more to develop a basic strategy, and then a few more to discover how to effectively carry out this strategy. Once you understand the rules, the game becomes simpler, and you don't have to worry about missing one rule that ruins your strategy.
The game mechanics make timing extremely crucial. Most of the player interaction comes in the form of role choosing. When one player chooses a role, all players take the same action; but the role chooser gets a privilege. So each player is always trying to make sure they have the right resources at the right time. The best role a player can generally take is a role in which their action is meaningful, and the other players' actions are meaningless.
This precise timing creates passive cutthroat games. There are very few active attacks on other players, but if things go the wrong order for a player, they can end up wasting a lot of time. Doing this to your opponents is a large part of the game. But the strategy in timing is fun, there are many interesting strategies and nobody usually gets too upset.
Another aspect of the roles is that everyone is doing stuff very frequently. No one has wait long periods of time if the game isn't going their way. Puerto Rico is a very engaging game.
In conclusion, Puerto Rico takes a bit of getting used to, and can be cutthroat, but has fun strategy, and is engaging. A fun game.
Digger's Garden Match
Match is a simple kids game designed to teach geometry, shapes, colors, and pattern recognition. The game is composed of players placing down hexes which have 6 triangles, each triangle having a shape, a number of shapes and a color. Players match shape or color, scoring points for the matched symbols. The game ends when the hexes run out, and the winner is the one with the most points.
The matching was simple enough, and I think kids would love the game. Everything made sense, but I think it was a little too simple for most of the students liking. It was still competitive, and we worked together, to some extent, noticing various aspects of our particular game together.
In conclusion, a fun game, for maybe a couple times. Much better for young kids, I'd imagine.
Puerto Rico
For a while, Puerto Rico was my families favorite game. Even though I know a lot about it, I still learned a new rule about it last night. Players choose roles in order to gain, sell, and ship away goods, build buildings, acquire colonists, and build up production. Shipping away goods and building buildings gives a player victory points. The player with the most victory points at the end of the game achieves victory.
The rules of Puerto Rico are very complex. For most people, it takes a game or two just to understand the rules, a few more to develop a basic strategy, and then a few more to discover how to effectively carry out this strategy. Once you understand the rules, the game becomes simpler, and you don't have to worry about missing one rule that ruins your strategy.
The game mechanics make timing extremely crucial. Most of the player interaction comes in the form of role choosing. When one player chooses a role, all players take the same action; but the role chooser gets a privilege. So each player is always trying to make sure they have the right resources at the right time. The best role a player can generally take is a role in which their action is meaningful, and the other players' actions are meaningless.
This precise timing creates passive cutthroat games. There are very few active attacks on other players, but if things go the wrong order for a player, they can end up wasting a lot of time. Doing this to your opponents is a large part of the game. But the strategy in timing is fun, there are many interesting strategies and nobody usually gets too upset.
Another aspect of the roles is that everyone is doing stuff very frequently. No one has wait long periods of time if the game isn't going their way. Puerto Rico is a very engaging game.
In conclusion, Puerto Rico takes a bit of getting used to, and can be cutthroat, but has fun strategy, and is engaging. A fun game.
Monday, January 13, 2014
1/10/14
Today, we played Settlers of Catan for the entire class.
Settlers of Catan
Settlers of Catan, or Settlers for short, is a game of expansion. Each player starts with two settlements and two roads and throughout the course of the game, expand by building more settlements, roads, cities, and development cards. Settlements and cities help you gain resources through the die rolls that each player takes each turn. Harbors help you trade resources with the bank to get the ones you want, so you can build what you want. The robber steals from people and blocks off certain production. The goal of the game is to score victory points, which is done through this expansion.
Today, we split up into groups depending on our level of Settlers experience. Professor Blankespoor has made several variations, so my group finished one of his, and started another.
Settlers of Catan
Settlers of Catan, or Settlers for short, is a game of expansion. Each player starts with two settlements and two roads and throughout the course of the game, expand by building more settlements, roads, cities, and development cards. Settlements and cities help you gain resources through the die rolls that each player takes each turn. Harbors help you trade resources with the bank to get the ones you want, so you can build what you want. The robber steals from people and blocks off certain production. The goal of the game is to score victory points, which is done through this expansion.
Today, we split up into groups depending on our level of Settlers experience. Professor Blankespoor has made several variations, so my group finished one of his, and started another.
Team Settlers
The first variation our group played, which we finished, was the professor's basic team game. The four players are split up into two teams who add points together, but do not add any of their other interaction together. Also, resources can only be traded blindly with your teammate. My team won by a large margin, in part because I had the harbor of the most rolled resource, partly because placing the robber on one of us meant also meant blocking off some of their own production, and partly because we got lucky.
This team variation had very little trading in total, because the motivation is low. The only reason you'd help your competitor is if it helped you more, at which point they wouldn't want to help you at all. I liked how the team mechanic worked in general, but the team interaction seemed a little low. There was all the normal chance of a settlers game, and my opponents got unlucky.
The game was as simple as any settlers game, although the blind trading concept was a little hard to grasp at first.
Adding a cooperative element to settlers is a nice change up to the regular cutthroat settlers. In fact, I think everyone was a bit more friendly to each other.
In conclusion, a fun variation, especially when getting sick and tired of fighting tooth and nail with everyone.
Own Game Settlers
The second variation our group played, which we didn't get very far in, was the professor's "own game" variant. The idea is, everyone gets the same tiles, harbors, and similar numbers, and creates their own board. The dice rolls still give everyone production, and trading is still allowed, but the for the most part, the players don't interact with each other. We didn't get very far.
It is an interesting game, but I think eventually the best setup can be found, and then it's just a game of chance. We didn't have enough time to really explore the game, but it hadn't been play tested much, so there was a small problem with the harbors. I think it could be fun; I'd like to finish a game.
In conclusion, a variation relatively fun early on, but a longer playthrough is needed to get a real sense of the game.
Friday, January 10, 2014
1/9/14
Today, we played Perudo, Apples to Apples, and Pictures and Propositions.
Pictures and Propositions
Pictures and Propositions, perhaps more commonly known as Telephone Pictionary, is a game just for laughs. Each player writes a phrase. They then pass it to the next player in line, who looks at the phrase, draws it, and then passes it. The next player looks at the drawing, writes a phrase describing it, and then passes it. The game ends when each phrase train gets back to its creator. Everyone then goes around and gives a summary of what happened from the original phrase to the final phrase or picture. There's no winner. I went from "the snow falls lazily on the fawn" to "a flying pig".
The draw pass write pass system works well, except for the occasional hiccup in transmission. We had thirteen players, so two pages needed to be used for each train.
Simple rules, simple game. Some players had trouble coming up with a phrase, and some had trouble drawing, but for the most part, the game is simple.
There's no competition. The game is purely for fun, and seeing what ridiculous misinterpretations occur.
It's a fun, relaxed party game. There's no winner or loser, so it kind of becomes a cooperative game. Everyone has a great time laughing at each other.
In conclusion, a fun, simple party game without competition. It does take a bit of time for a party game, especially with higher numbers of players. A classic game in my circles, boatloads of relaxing fun.
Perudo
Perudo is known by many names, and is a specific version of group of games known as liar's dice.
It is a dice game in which players, who each have dice, bid in turn on how many dice of a certain number is on the table on everyone's dice. Each player, on their turn, instead of bidding, can doubt the previous player, causing one of them to lose a die. When a player gets down to one die, the game shakes up a bit for one round. The game ends when only one player has any die left, who wins. I got third. It was a fun game.
The bid system seemed to work well. It was unfair at times, but there was strategy to the unfairness. It is a game of chance, but for a long time, it seemed like there wasn't too much, and a good Perudo player would almost always beat a poor one. The bidding also provides a build up to a result, which generally created lots of noise when it was discovered who would lose a die.
The games rules were relatively simple; they weren't explained well, but once everyone got them, the game went pretty smoothly. It's not a difficult game to play on a basic level, but one player did not get the strategy and lost relatively quickly.
It was a very competitive game, as evidenced by the shouting, but it is generally friendly. There's enough chance that you can usually blame the dice for your loss, but not enough chance to lose the sense of satisfaction from making a good play.
In conclusion, Perudo is a fun party game that actually has some strategy to it. I had never heard of this game before, but I think I'll try it at some later point with my family. It's a fun game.
Apples to Apples
Apples to Apples is a pretty common game, at least among my circles. No one in my group of six needed to learn the rules, we just picked it up and started playing. Each turn, one player draws a green adjective card, which other players match with a red noun card. The green card player choose which red card they think matches best (or is funniest, as it turned out in this game). They player who played that card wins the round and the green card, and the next player draws a green card. The winner is the player with the most green cards; the games can go as long or short as you want. I usually stink at this game, but I actually tied for first this time.
The rounds are nice and short, and having one player just choosing makes it a game of knowing the player with the green card. The game's mechanic works well in a rinse and repeat fashion. Didn't win this round? Well, the next rounds already here!
The rules are extremely simple and easy to understand. There's barely any confusion ever. Very easy to play.
Since one player chooses a winner for the round, the time between round wins can be long, creating a sense of hopelessness for ever winning. However, there's not too much competition, and the best part of the game is just listening to the cards played for each green card. Generally there's at least one that's hilarious. "My bathroom" for scary, for example.
In conclusion, Apples to Apples is another good party game. It is a good get to know people game, as you get a good sense for how the green card person thinks. I'm not sure you could play for too long or too short. A classic that most people know. A fun game.
Pictures and Propositions
Pictures and Propositions, perhaps more commonly known as Telephone Pictionary, is a game just for laughs. Each player writes a phrase. They then pass it to the next player in line, who looks at the phrase, draws it, and then passes it. The next player looks at the drawing, writes a phrase describing it, and then passes it. The game ends when each phrase train gets back to its creator. Everyone then goes around and gives a summary of what happened from the original phrase to the final phrase or picture. There's no winner. I went from "the snow falls lazily on the fawn" to "a flying pig".
The draw pass write pass system works well, except for the occasional hiccup in transmission. We had thirteen players, so two pages needed to be used for each train.
Simple rules, simple game. Some players had trouble coming up with a phrase, and some had trouble drawing, but for the most part, the game is simple.
There's no competition. The game is purely for fun, and seeing what ridiculous misinterpretations occur.
It's a fun, relaxed party game. There's no winner or loser, so it kind of becomes a cooperative game. Everyone has a great time laughing at each other.
In conclusion, a fun, simple party game without competition. It does take a bit of time for a party game, especially with higher numbers of players. A classic game in my circles, boatloads of relaxing fun.
Perudo
Perudo is known by many names, and is a specific version of group of games known as liar's dice.
It is a dice game in which players, who each have dice, bid in turn on how many dice of a certain number is on the table on everyone's dice. Each player, on their turn, instead of bidding, can doubt the previous player, causing one of them to lose a die. When a player gets down to one die, the game shakes up a bit for one round. The game ends when only one player has any die left, who wins. I got third. It was a fun game.
The bid system seemed to work well. It was unfair at times, but there was strategy to the unfairness. It is a game of chance, but for a long time, it seemed like there wasn't too much, and a good Perudo player would almost always beat a poor one. The bidding also provides a build up to a result, which generally created lots of noise when it was discovered who would lose a die.
The games rules were relatively simple; they weren't explained well, but once everyone got them, the game went pretty smoothly. It's not a difficult game to play on a basic level, but one player did not get the strategy and lost relatively quickly.
It was a very competitive game, as evidenced by the shouting, but it is generally friendly. There's enough chance that you can usually blame the dice for your loss, but not enough chance to lose the sense of satisfaction from making a good play.
In conclusion, Perudo is a fun party game that actually has some strategy to it. I had never heard of this game before, but I think I'll try it at some later point with my family. It's a fun game.
Apples to Apples
Apples to Apples is a pretty common game, at least among my circles. No one in my group of six needed to learn the rules, we just picked it up and started playing. Each turn, one player draws a green adjective card, which other players match with a red noun card. The green card player choose which red card they think matches best (or is funniest, as it turned out in this game). They player who played that card wins the round and the green card, and the next player draws a green card. The winner is the player with the most green cards; the games can go as long or short as you want. I usually stink at this game, but I actually tied for first this time.
The rounds are nice and short, and having one player just choosing makes it a game of knowing the player with the green card. The game's mechanic works well in a rinse and repeat fashion. Didn't win this round? Well, the next rounds already here!
The rules are extremely simple and easy to understand. There's barely any confusion ever. Very easy to play.
Since one player chooses a winner for the round, the time between round wins can be long, creating a sense of hopelessness for ever winning. However, there's not too much competition, and the best part of the game is just listening to the cards played for each green card. Generally there's at least one that's hilarious. "My bathroom" for scary, for example.
In conclusion, Apples to Apples is another good party game. It is a good get to know people game, as you get a good sense for how the green card person thinks. I'm not sure you could play for too long or too short. A classic that most people know. A fun game.
Blog intro
At least to start, the purpose of this blog is to record my experiences in my college class, "Games in community" The class is every day, 3 hours a day, for three weeks. In class, we play and study board games as a community.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)