His games might bring more joy at family events. I like games which are designed to be fun when everyone is trying to win, not just when the winners are also having to subtlely contort their decisions to avoid ruining anyone’s fun. I’m not familiar with Sirlin’s games, but I do recall reading a similar point in reviews of the “German-style” games which have revitalized board gaming: since these games’ mechanics try to make them enjoyable to lose, not just to win, it’s easier for people to both try to have fun with other players and try to win without one goal compromising the other.
Ironically enough Sirlin’s games are virtually impossible to play to win (or to lose). He’s a big believer in having all your options being of equal value, so the “game” is in figuring out what your opponent will do and playing the appropriate counter to that. But the result is that playing randomly is just as good as playing strategically.
No. There are good and bad players at, say, Kongai. Whether I would win or lose depended very strongly on how focused I was and how well my team was organized.
It’s the difference between Rock-Paper-Scissors as usually played and RPS if you get 4 points for winning with scissors, 2 for winning with rock, and 1 for winning with paper.
Does to me. But I was never a fan of the two-player fighting games that Sirlin seems to hold in such high regard; I can imagine that people who like those (and there are many such people) might like Sirlin’s games.
His games might bring more joy at family events. I like games which are designed to be fun when everyone is trying to win, not just when the winners are also having to subtlely contort their decisions to avoid ruining anyone’s fun. I’m not familiar with Sirlin’s games, but I do recall reading a similar point in reviews of the “German-style” games which have revitalized board gaming: since these games’ mechanics try to make them enjoyable to lose, not just to win, it’s easier for people to both try to have fun with other players and try to win without one goal compromising the other.
Could you describe such a game to me? I’m intrigued.
Grossly overgeneralizing here, the difference between a “German-style game” or “Eurogame” and what is affectionately known as “Ameritrash” among boardgame enthusiasts (though there are games in both categories designed in both the US and Europe) is that Eurogames tend to be games involving strategic optimization to earn points, whereas Ameritrash tends to emphasis direct conflict between players. Though it’s more of a spectrum than a dichotomy.
The big three light (as in easy-to-learn) Eurogames that really went mainstream are Settlers of Catan, Carcassonne, and Ticket to Ride. Of those three, only SoC really offers the possibility to be a dick to another player, and even there not to the degree you would see in direct-conflict games.
Note, among other things, that it is rare to have a runaway leader in these games, and in the cases of Carcassone and TTR, it’s almost impossible to tell for sure who is winning until the game is over. That tends to keep everyone engaged and enjoying themselves.
If you want examples of heavier, pure Eurogames, take a look at something like Puerto Rico, Argricola, or Power Grid.
Some TTR maps are more cutthroat, but the basic TTR and TTR: Europe are sufficiently forgiving in terms of alternate routes that you can’t really say someone is being a dick by cutting you off. Whereas, say, “trade X for Y, followed by play Monopoly X” in SoC is genuinely obnoxious though perfectly legal.
I am reminded of the game “Yahtzee” which has no direct conflict between players; you just try to maximize your score and whoever scores highest wins. I agree that a game like this has less potential for cutthroat play than other games.
But still, one can imagine Sirlin playing Yahtzee with a child at a family event and the child (who is way behind in points) makes a poor decision about which dice to re-roll. Would Sirlin let the child take back his choice?
His games might bring more joy at family events. I like games which are designed to be fun when everyone is trying to win, not just when the winners are also having to subtlely contort their decisions to avoid ruining anyone’s fun. I’m not familiar with Sirlin’s games, but I do recall reading a similar point in reviews of the “German-style” games which have revitalized board gaming: since these games’ mechanics try to make them enjoyable to lose, not just to win, it’s easier for people to both try to have fun with other players and try to win without one goal compromising the other.
Ironically enough Sirlin’s games are virtually impossible to play to win (or to lose). He’s a big believer in having all your options being of equal value, so the “game” is in figuring out what your opponent will do and playing the appropriate counter to that. But the result is that playing randomly is just as good as playing strategically.
No. There are good and bad players at, say, Kongai. Whether I would win or lose depended very strongly on how focused I was and how well my team was organized.
It’s the difference between Rock-Paper-Scissors as usually played and RPS if you get 4 points for winning with scissors, 2 for winning with rock, and 1 for winning with paper.
Those are totally different games.
Doesn’t that make the game uninteresting?
Does to me. But I was never a fan of the two-player fighting games that Sirlin seems to hold in such high regard; I can imagine that people who like those (and there are many such people) might like Sirlin’s games.
Could you describe such a game to me? I’m intrigued.
Grossly overgeneralizing here, the difference between a “German-style game” or “Eurogame” and what is affectionately known as “Ameritrash” among boardgame enthusiasts (though there are games in both categories designed in both the US and Europe) is that Eurogames tend to be games involving strategic optimization to earn points, whereas Ameritrash tends to emphasis direct conflict between players. Though it’s more of a spectrum than a dichotomy.
The big three light (as in easy-to-learn) Eurogames that really went mainstream are Settlers of Catan, Carcassonne, and Ticket to Ride. Of those three, only SoC really offers the possibility to be a dick to another player, and even there not to the degree you would see in direct-conflict games.
Note, among other things, that it is rare to have a runaway leader in these games, and in the cases of Carcassone and TTR, it’s almost impossible to tell for sure who is winning until the game is over. That tends to keep everyone engaged and enjoying themselves.
If you want examples of heavier, pure Eurogames, take a look at something like Puerto Rico, Argricola, or Power Grid.
Watch Settters of Catan being played
Watch Carcassonne being played
Watch Ticket to Ride being played
Pfft. The only interesting way to play Ticket to Ride is to strategically block the other players’ routes.
Some TTR maps are more cutthroat, but the basic TTR and TTR: Europe are sufficiently forgiving in terms of alternate routes that you can’t really say someone is being a dick by cutting you off. Whereas, say, “trade X for Y, followed by play Monopoly X” in SoC is genuinely obnoxious though perfectly legal.
I am reminded of the game “Yahtzee” which has no direct conflict between players; you just try to maximize your score and whoever scores highest wins. I agree that a game like this has less potential for cutthroat play than other games.
But still, one can imagine Sirlin playing Yahtzee with a child at a family event and the child (who is way behind in points) makes a poor decision about which dice to re-roll. Would Sirlin let the child take back his choice?