Valentine’s Day is normally one of my favoritest days of the whole year. I’m not big on emotion as a general rule, but there’s something about Valentine’s Day that has always spoken to me. I make goody bags for people. These bags have changed as I’ve gotten older – personalized cards to sex toys to recipe journals. Hey! Don’t judge me! My interests are as varied as the friends I share them with. Anyway.
This Valentine’s Day I’m going to mix it up a bit. I’m going to play board games solo-ly? Is that a word? What I’m trying to say is that I’m going to play solo variants of some of the board games I own. Assuming the advanced search thing on BGG works, I’m sitting at about 50 games that offer solo play. Now, I won’t be playing all of these Saturday as I don’t know the rules to them all nor do I feel like learning them before then. I am, however, going to pick out several of them to play.
I was just going to talk about the ones I was going to play, but I think I’ll list them and whether or not I’ll be playing them. If I exclude something you think is worth a go, let me know. If your argument is compelling, I’ll do my best to learn the game and get it played. No guarantees. Oh yeah, they’re listed in order of rank on BGG in case you were wondering.
Eldritch Horror: I have yet to play this, but I’ve played enough Arkham that maybe they’re similar?
This past weekend I went to PAX East, and well, I’m not sure it’s my scene. What? How can that be you say? It’s simple.
I haven’t regularly played video games in years, so it was all foreign to me. Sure, the spectacle was cool to witness, but I wasn’t engaged at all. It was loud. It was crowded. It was not for me. Even the tabletop section left a lot to be desired. Of course, I’m not too critical of this area because board games/card games/miniatures aren’t the focus of PAX East. So, with that in mind, it was a decent area. There was a large playing area, which always appeared to be full (sometimes too full). There was a board game library available. There were some tournaments. There were unplugged things to do, a fact the people who just spent eight hours connected to a screen or controller took advantage of when the expo hall closed down.
Part of me wants to ramble on about why I didn’t particularly care for it, but I won’t. No one wants to read the ramblings of a euro gamer trapped in a video game world. So here are some of my biggest takeaways from PAX:
Our panel blurb. It would appear I wasn’t really on the panel.
PAX is good for talking about the things you love. I was on the Talk Like a Board Game Geek panel where we talked about board games and language and the impact one has on the other. Only a few people fell asleep, which is 80 less than I thought would. Being part of a panel means talking with other people with whom I had interesting conversations inside and outside of the panel as well as some rousing games of The Resistance and Hanabi. Thanks guys! It was fun!
I didn’t attend any of the other panels mostly because I’m a bad con-goer and didn’t once look at the schedule of events, which by the way is pretty exhaustive. There were panels on all sorts of topics both board and video game-related. Had I been a more effective con-goer, there were several I would have like to have attended. Oh well.
Not all conventions have to be board game-based conventions. The only other two conventions I’ve been to – Lobster Trap and Unity Games – are all about playing board games. Lobster Trap is about the latest Essen goodness, is small, and is marvelous. Unity Games is a larger event but still all about playing games, there’s even a charity auction. At both of these conventions, I play games that I would not have access to otherwise but have wanted to play for varying amounts of time, usually of the euro variety.
PAX’s game library did not appeal to me at all, which forced me to pay attention to the booths, which were pretty good. Whether it was Plaid Hat tucked away in the Tabletop Area or Greater Than Games hidden among the video games or The Unpub or the official unofficial Evolutiontable there were a lot of games to be played of all sorts. Lots of companies were demoing their games. Lots of local stores (which I found surprising) had booths where they were demoing games; in fact, I learned to play Boss Monster at one. There were several indie publishers like Ad Magic helping promote their designers. Some booths were easier to get into than others based on space, location, etc. As a gamer, I was happy to see that most of these booths had steady streams of people at their tables – whether that was one table or eight of them. And, I think that’s good. Actually, it’s fantastic. The fact that even at what is basically a video game convention, board game-related booths, activities, etc. were persistently busy is good because it means those companies are reaching a newer and larger base and will be able to continue doing what they love.
PAX is good for playing games you wouldn’t have otherwise. I played several games that I probably wouldn’t have bothered seeking out on my own. Some of them I would have played if someone had it, but I don’t know that they would have entered the house under the cloak of darkness for me to find later (my husband has a slight board game purchasing problem in case you didn’t know). While we’re on the topic of my husband, he would probably adamantly disagree with me on this point: I don’t think you should commit to one type of board game. I don’t usually like thematic (look Erin, I’ve grown) games, but I still think it’s important to play them. That way I can continue to have a valid argument as to why I don’t like them. I haven’t wanted to quit brain-melty-euroy goodness because I’m dabbling into these other types of games, but I am appreciating games for what they have to offer. And, here’s the point my husband is missing: appreciating a game isn’t the same as liking a game. Going to a convention that primarily offers games you don’t normally play allows you to expand not only your repertoire but also your appreciation for games.
Here’s what I played, and I guess a mini-review while we’re at it (why not?). (I’ve made each game it’s own post; it’s easier to digest that way.) Oh, and these are in the order that I happened to play them not of preference or anything.
Evolution. Evolution, as the name suggests, is about evolving species and trying to survive by cleverly adapting or simply wiping out everyone else. The game plays 2-5 players and lasts about 45 minutes.
A game of Evolution.
In the interest of disclosure, I demoed this game. North Star Games is Kickstarting it in the beginning of May and was looking for volunteers to teach it, so I did. I taught it four or five times and played it about six or seven. I played it with four and five players, and it worked well with both numbers. Four lets you build a bigger engine, but five still feels good. With the exception of the last game, I played all my games with people I didn’t know. The groups I had were into the game and most everyone was excited for the Kickstarter. There can be times when you feel hopeless. For example, if you’re playing with Ryan Metzler, and he keeps killing all your friggin’ animals. Or, perhaps, you keep building carnivores but forget to bump up their body size at the same time so that they can actually eat something and keep dying as a result. There’s a slight learning curve in regards to how the traits work and work best, but that’s to be expected. Overall, I really enjoyed Evolution and look forward to its release.
About to enter an Adventure Phase.
Boss Monster. Boss Monster is a dungeon-building card game. It plays 2-4 players and takes about 30 minutes. Well, the Geek says 20, but I think it took us 30-45, which apparently the rulebook says might happen. I played it with four players at the Pandemonium Books & Games booth. I forget what the name of the person who taught us the game was (because I’m a bad person with a bad memory), but he was great. There was a kid in our group (and if I was a better friend I’d know how old he was – 7?), and the guy demoing was very patient and helpful. So, anyway, back to Boss Monster.
In Boss Monster, each player is a “Boss” – think end of game NES bosses – trying to lure Heroes into their dungeons. On their turn, players will be able to build their dungeon, adding one room at a time (unless a card says otherwise) up to five rooms. Once a dungeon has reached five rooms, they player can level up any time they want. If they’re not happy with the rooms they have, they can replace them or upgrade them. Each room has a treasure symbol(s) on the bottom right corner of the card that will attract the Heroes; the player with the most of a given treasure symbol will attract those heroes to his or her dungeon. But, of course, it’s not enough to just attract to the heroes, you want to be able to destroy the heroes, which is where the dungeon rooms come into play. The dungeon rooms each have various attack points that hurt the heroes all of which have hit points on their cards. The point is to trap the souls of heroes in the dungeon. The first player to capture 10 souls wins the game.
Anyway, I think Boss Monster is okay. I can see how it could be a good ender to a night, especially if you have down to that 20-minute range, which is all this game should take. If every game took 45 minutes, I don’t think I’d be interested in it at all. I may get it for my son to play with his friends; they like that kind of dungeon crawly stuff, and I’m sure the “let’s try to build the most ridiculous dungeon” thing would appeal to them all. I’ve been told the expansions really make it a better game, but I haven’t played with them, so I don’t know. If it’s true, I’d give them a whirl.
Start(ish) of Dead of Winter.
Dead of Winter. Co-ops aren’t usually my thing. Zombies are most certainly never my thing. That being said, I really enjoyed Dead of Winter. I came in after the teach, so I wasn’t officially taught the game. Instead, I will talk about the things I liked about the game because I’m too lazy to go read the rules in their entirety, which it turns out I can’t even do (that’s what I get for trying to be proactive). A conversation about the game it is.
The world has ended in some horrific way creating two things: winter and zombies. You are a team of survivors each working toward a common objective. Well, you’re probably all working toward a common objective; you might be the Betrayer, in which case you want everyone else to fail. Hey, it’s some dark times, man. You have to look out for numero uno. Speaking of the Betrayer, that card is a secret objective card, which everyone gets. So, there’s not only the main goal that needs to happen to win the game, there are also secret goals that you have to accomplish for you to win the game along with everyone else. I like this, and I like this for a couple of reasons. First, it gets rid of the alpha-player thing. Listen, buddy, I have things I need to get done too, so back up off me. While we’re talking about backing up off of people, you can vote to exile someone out of the community if you they’re not being helpful. A word of caution: if you do this twice(?) to not a Betrayer (just a big ass), you automatically lose the game. Back to objectives. Second, the secret objectives give you something to live for other than being told what to do. You will actually have to figure out what you need to do to help everyone win (maybe) and/or help yourself win.
Kodiak Colby. That is all.
The zombie thing is there but not really. They just show up. If too many of them show up, horrible things happen. It’s not the focus of the game. The focus of the game is on survival of the group and survival of the self (or just the self, Betrayer). That’s why I like this game. There’s so much stuff going on it really feels collaborative more than cooperative if that makes sense. I will definitely be preordering Dead of Winter. If for no other reason as to have Kodiak Colby all to myself.
PAX is good for seeing publishers in action. While we’re talking about Colby, I was very impressed with his business ethic. Dead of Winter came in the mail on Friday. As in, the first day of PAX. The copy they received is the pre-production copy (I believe). Of course, I didn’t know this right away. I never find the quality of Plaid Hat’s games to be lacking, so I was a bit surprised to find the cards and player mats to be thin and flimsy. I laminate everything anyway, so I would’ve done as much for the player mats. I did feel for everyone who isn’t a fan of lamination though. I mentioned that I would have to do so to the person demoing (whose name I wish I remembered, but we’ve already covered the bad person/bad memory thing – he was super nice, Colby’s brother-in-law), which is when I learned that it was the first copy of the game that came in the mail the day before. He was in the middle of telling me how some people have commented on the player mats and the thinness of the cards as well when Colby asked to see a deck of cards. He was rushed and on the phone. He was on the phone with the people who made the cards and was describing to them how what was in the box wasn’t going to work for production. I’m sure (hope) this kind of stuff goes on behind the scenes, in offices and such, but I was really surprised to see the urgency with which he was correcting the problem. I don’t already own all of Plaid Hat’s games, but now I think I might just have to grow my collection.
PAX teaches you to appreciate things for what they are even if they’re not for you. Part of our panel was about dismissive terms: Ameritrash, point salad, etc. How these terms, while negatively connoted, serve a purpose. They allow people to become aware of how games are viewed by and in the community. Then, with that knowledge, you can change what you put in to the community to avoid being part of and/or propagating the negative stereotype. I feel like PAX is a dismissive term for me. I may not have always held it in the highest regards, but now having experienced it, I understand it. Now that I understand PAX, I can change how I approach it and what it has to offer. Instead of seeing it as a thing of contention, we can create a relationship built on explorative accord.
I’ve been working on developing board game programming for my local community center. I’m meeting with the Director again today, which of course, has me thinking about the design of my program.
Here’s the gist of it:
It’s a ten-week program. We’re going to run it in a repeating four-week block for the remainder of this school year and then start the ten-week run at the start of next school year. Using the mini-sessions to test the waters of interest and adjust on a more manageable scale.
It’s based on mechanics. I’ve talked about this briefly on our podcast, but I’ll bring you up to date. After a lot of discussion with my husband, I decided on doing it based on mechanics. The Director thought it would be good to do “theme weeks”, which is the way I used to run my adult game group before I stopped. I wasn’t in love with it though since the program is designed for brand new gamers, and while themes are fun, it can make learning games more difficult. I thought about doing it based on genres, but it wasn’t focused enough. Ultimately, I decided to go with mechanics because it allows gamers to understand how a single mechanic works in a variety of games. It makes teaching easier in that I can give a general overview of how the mechanic works and then apply it to each specific game. It also allows players to decide on their comfort/enjoyment of a type of game versus a theme of a game. Another main reason I picked mechanics is because it’s easier to plug and play games based on age/ability/interest.
As you may or may not know, I have a background in education. I taught high school English and reading through a Special Education Department as well as some adult ed GED classes. In both of these capacities, I developed curriculum because it wasn’t readily available for my students (such is the life of the red-headed bastard stepchildren programs of the education world but I digress). My point is, my brain thinks like a teacher who is charged with reaching a diverse group of learners with, in some cases, extremely varied learning needs. If you happen to be in education, you might be familiar with Understanding by Design principles. The lesson plans/training materials I am working on will follow this framework.
I’m trying to run the program with each week increasing in difficulty. I realize this is a completely subjective list, but I’m trying to make games structurally approachable. I did spend some time on the Geek researching gateway games, etc. to make sure I was on a somewhat coherent path. The definitions were the result of looking at several resources. The games were mostly chosen based on personal experiences, but some were picked based on suggestions and/or trolling the Geek. Anyway, here’s an outline of the program.
The 10-Week Program Outline
Week 1: Set Collection
Week 2: Press Your Luck
Week 3: Deck Building
Week 4: Tile Placement
Week 5: Auction
Week 6: Worker Placement
Week 7: Area Majority
Week 8: Action Selection
Week 9: Resource Management
Week 10: Co-ops
The Four-Week Mini-Sessions Outline
Week 1: Set Collection
Overview: Set collection involves players collecting sets of cards, goods, or tiles in order to obtain points, resources, or benefits.
Established Goal: Players will be able to play games that use the set collection mechanic.
Understandings: Players will understand…
how set collection works in a variety of games.
how set collection enables players to accomplish different goals.
Essential Question: How do board games use the set collection mechanic?
Example Games
Ticket to Ride
Tokaido
Looting London
Ra
Week 2: Press Your Luck
Overview: Press your luck involves players tempting fate by deciding how long to stay in an action. It is up to the player to choose whether to play it safe and save their progress or keep going until they lose their progress.
Established Goal: Players will be able to play games that use the press your luck mechanic.
Understandings: Players will understand…
how press your luck works in a variety of games.
how to calculate the odds they earn a desired result in a game.
Essential Question: How do board games use the press your luck mechanic?
Example Games
Incan Gold
King of Tokyo
Can’t Stop
Pasha
Week 3: Deck Building
Overview: Deck building involves building a deck of cards from a base set. Typically, cards can be purchased or drafted and offer unique abilities. It is not uncommon to have chaining effects, offering points or other benefits.
Established Goal: Players will be able to play games that use the deck building mechanic.
Understandings: Players will understand…
how deck building works in a variety of games.
how to effectively build a deck and utilize chaining effects.
Essential Question: How do board games use the deck building mechanic?
Example Games
Dominion
Smash Up
Thunderstone Starter Set
Quarriors
Week 4: Co-ops
Overview: Co-ops, short for cooperative games, involve players working together to try to beat the game. Typically, there is little or no competition, but some co-op games involve a traitor who tries to hinder other players’ progress toward beating the game. There’s only one winner: the players or the game.
Established Goal: Players will be able to play cooperative games.
Understandings: Players will understand…
how cooperatives work in a variety of games.
how to simultaneously use multiple mechanics to work with players to beat the game.
Essential Question: How do board games use the cooperative mechanic?
Example Games
Forbidden Desert
Forbidden Island
Castle Panic
Hanabi
Other Possibly Interesting Points
I’m using high school volunteers to run game tables. The high school students in my town are required to complete so many hours of community service in order to graduate high school. In an effort to save costs for the community center as well as provide a service to the community, I’ve decided to use high school students to teach. This is also true of my TableTop Day event, although I will have staff as well that day.
Training materials will include lesson plans and videos. Being able to have anyone run the program was important to the Director. Thus, I am making training materials to accommodate this need. I decided to do both lesson plans and videos to reach people in a variety of formats. Truth be told, the lesson plans will function as a sort of script for the videos. Speaking of the videos, I think I’m going to create two segments. One where I teach the teacher and cover things to watch out for, helpful modifications, etc. The other where I teach the player as a sort of sample teach.
Games were purchased and donated. I was given a budget to purchase games. All of the games listed above were purchased. In addition, game companies and stores graciously donated some games, which fit nicely into the other weeks’ categories. The ones that don’t will be available for open gaming events. All of the games will be available to play during my TableTop Day event.
The program is for school-aged students, families, and seniors. The four-week mini-sessions are targeted for the school-aged students. However, starting in the fall (possibly the summer), there will be programming for all levels of players. The school-aged students will be able to attend an after-school program, complete with transportation from the school. Families will be able to have open gaming one night a week (although this may be better for a once a month on a weekend type event). The senior center will also have a board game day once a week around lunch time.
And that’s that. I’ll be sure to post completed program stuff soon (I’m hoping by the end of the month).
As you may or may not have listened, our latest podcast discussed the benefits and downsides of wanting to play new games all the time versus “mastering”, if you will, a game. In the podcast, I broke down the cult of the new into two categories: those who want to play brand new games all the time and those who want to play games that are new to them, not necessarily hot off the presses. We kept referring to “diving deep”, which I’m not sure we agreed on a definition, hence we came up with two groups within the tried and true games. Diving deep could mean regularly revisiting a game just for the enjoyment of the game, or it could mean revisiting a game with the intention of exploring its intricacies. When we came up with the podcast idea, we wanted to figure out whether it was more important to play more games or play one game better.
Anyway, I took my oldest son to the airport, and we brought Hive Pocket with us. We’ve had this game for a few weeks and played it once before, several times in one sitting. He read the rules and taught the game (and actually did a good job with the teach much to surprise). The results from that night’s five games were that I won three games, and he won two. And, as he put it, I didn’t beat him one of the games, I just won. That in and of itself is an interesting take on things for a ten year old, but I sort of forgot about it.
So, we’re at the airport playing Hive Pocket. Well, let me take a minute here to explain my views on gaming with children. My son is very bright. Sure, all parents say that, but I think it nonetheless. Because I know he’s bright, especially with abstract thinking, I don’t really take it easy on him. I want to challenge him. I want him to challenge himself. The long and short of it is that I don’t let him win.
OK, back to the airport. We’re playing Hive Pocket, and after several rounds, he is getting frustrated by losing. He started getting very upset about losing his ability to win. I tried to talk to him about the importance of working on the basics and not worrying about fancy moves. I also talked to him about learning from losing and understanding why and how the previous strategy didn’t work. How does any of this relate to cult of the new and diving deep?
After this attempt at a pep talk, he started coming up with variants. He wanted to continue to explore the game but wanted to do it in new ways that he thought would help him win. So, then, does that make a third, combined group of people that want to do both in the way that he wanted to do as described above? And, if so, when the person who ascribes to this mentality is a child, which one is more important?
Here are the variants we played and the outcomes.
Variant 1: Random Set Up
We played this variant three different ways.
The first time, he had all the tiles face up and just set them up in a pattern. We kept our queen bees and placed them last, following existing placement rules. Gameplay then continued following normal rules.
Thoughts: Because he saw them, I’m not 100% if his ten-year-old mind didn’t place the tiles a certain way on purpose, but I let it slide. It added something to the game in that we were working in a reactive environment, trying to make the most of the situation.
The second time, we turned all the tiles face down and created a pattern. From there, we flipped them all over in their positions. Then, we placed our queen bees and followed normal gameplay.
Thoughts: Pretty much the same as the first but erased any possibility of him consciously or subconsciously placing tiles on purpose. But, that being said, I wonder if letting him look at them while he set them up has some of its own merits because, hopefully, he’s using strategy as he places them. Hmmm…
The third time, all tiles, including the bee, were face down and placed. We flipped them all and continued gameplay as normal.
Thoughts: Not knowing where the bee was was interesting. Other than that, it played out similarly to the other times mentioned above.
Variant 2: Blind Drawing
For this variant, we had all of our tiles face down in front of us, including the queen bee. We drew and placed tiles without knowing what it was.
Thoughts: What was most interesting about this was his queen came out on his third move, and mine didn’t come out until much later. He was most upset by this and thought it wasn’t fair, but it did force him to have think more actively about his queen, which is something I don’t think he was doing up until this point.
Variant 3: Mind Control
My son is very aggressive when playing games. He doesn’t like penalties, but he sure likes inflicting them on others. To play using this variant, when someone misplaces a tile, the other player makes their next move. Everything else stays the same.
Thoughts: He was giddy with excitement when I misplaced (okay, I did throw him a bone or two. I’m not a total monster) and liked trying to “mess me up” by playing my next move. This is okay to me because it requires some thought as to how placing the opponent’s tile will play out in a way that doesn’t help them but somehow helps the self. On the other hand, when I got to do his next move, he was not a happy camper.
Variant 4: Hungry Beetle
Remember how I said he likes to be an aggressive player? This variant involves allowing the beetle to “eat” any bug he climbs on because he’s attacking the hive; the only bug that couldn’t be eaten was the queen. All other play stays the same.
Thoughts: He didn’t think this one out. He was consumed with how he can use it to eat up all my bugs, which he did his fair share of. However, there were times when I forced him to eat his own bugs because his idea was that the beetles eat any bug he climbs on. He did not like this idea because he also ate a lot of his own bugs this way. Unfortunately, we did not get a chance to play with this one a second time because his flight boarded. I would like to play it this way again because it forces him to think more about his play. How can I place this beetle so I eat her bugs and not my own? Is there a benefit to sacrificing my own bugs? Also, there could be a situation when no queen is surrounded because there aren’t enough surviving bugs to encircle the queen, so then there might need to be another win condition, such as the person with the most bugs in the hive wins.
During my drive home, I thought about if there was anything inherently wrong with his desire to make new versions of the game. It would seem as though he needs to focus on the basic Hive game before adding all these variants. At the same time, however, he is still displaying signs of excitement about and the desire to play and understand the game. By creating variants, he is thinking about the game in a different, deeper way. And, that’s good. But, his playing isn’t that strong, so he needs work on that part. As a parent, which is more important? Do I suggest a condition before he can start making variants? For example, before we let him play Sherlock in Mr. Jack Pocket, he had to successfully hide from Sherlock three times. This made him think more purposely and carefully about his actions in order to actually win and not just play haphazardly. What do you all think?
the ox pen 