Two unrelated notes

[mneme]

First, a toast to Robert Asprin. I only read nearly all his books -- and met him at the GaFilk he attended (where he proved to be a -consumate- performer), but regardless of his foibles (which I've heard about, but never seen), he had a greatness, and shall be mourned. This...has been a very bad year. I'm very glad years like this are uncommon, and I wish they were moreso.

Also, I've been thinking about the complaint about lack of (direct) competition in Race for the Galaxy. It's curious; the game is clearly highly competitive -- stronger players will win far more games, and other players' choices -- and correctly predicting and taking advantage of/countering those choices -- has a huge impact on the game. On the other hand, the game doesn't have -direct- competion -- there's no way to attack a player's positition after you identify them as a threat, nor are there limited resources (like the captain slots, trade slots, plantations, limited buildings, and extra colonists of Puerto Rico) for the players to squabble over. But here's the thing: the skills involved in direct competion in a multiplayer game -- threat evaluation, defensive play, etc -- aren't the only interesting skills in multiplayer games. Moreover, in some ways, the similarities between broad classes of direct competiition makes them more similar than different -- there are many ways that all auction games are alike, Lunch Money, Shadowfist, Illuminati, Munchkin, and "kill Dr Lucky" are far more similar than they probably should be, etc (I like Shadowfist a lot more than the others...but yeah, pretty much the same game wth different cards to evaluate and rules to compass). So maybe a rise in "indirect competition" games -- where threat evaluation skills and attack/defense allocation skills are comparatively irrelevant is a -good- thing -- because not all games need to be, or should be, the same game, or even belong to the same few broad categories of game.

Comments

[barking-iguana.livejournal.com]

To me, 1-person games are quite various, but making 1-person games into multi-person contests makes them all the same, to a fair degree. Shot put and golf are at least as much of a class as tennis and volleyball, because shotput and gold are both contests rather than sport games. I haven't seen Race for the Galaxy, but your implicit description of it makes it seem like a member of the golf-shot put class.

[mneme]

Quick Race desc: It's San Juan with simultaneous action selection (all players have their own action deck), shipping for vps put back in, and a larger and much more varied "building" deck.

Which is part of my point -- it's not a "competitive solitaire" game as golf and shot put are--but an indirect competition game where you can be strengthened by other players' choices, but mostly not weakened by them except in comparison. Compare to PR (for obvious reasons) -- where despite early detractors complaining about the lack of competition, there are plenty of ways you can play kingmaker, as above. In Race, there -are- ways to react to a strong position -- you can rush, you can avoid their strong actions, forcing them to take multiple actions while you benefit from then and hope to catch up; you can even quasi-collude, announcing your actions and hoping players knowing them will benefit you (since there are two distinct "builder" actions, this can be used to double-up a rush against a strong vp-earner--or two vp players can swap off producer and the big vp action -- though there's enough trust needed in that that I've never seen it tried). But still, setting up engines and predicting other players is far -more- of the game, and figuring out who's winning and hurting them while pushing your own goals far less.

Obvious, -every- multiplayer game is in a class (more than one, really), pointing to how you're competing with vthe other players (which is as you've agreed, frequently the dominating factor of such games). But IMO, the "threat evaluation" style of board game is way over-represented--and also integrally flawed, as players misevaluating threats can can produce a consistent unbalancing factor between stronger players in a way that a weak player in games that have far less threat evaluation (Power Grid has less than most, so does Tigris and Euphrates, and not just because of the hidden vps. Race has almost none) tend not to.

[maverick-weirdo.livejournal.com]

I like the "limited contact" play style of R4tG, however what most people ignore is that there is at least 1 method of hindering your opponent: Card denial

If you see an opponent is playing a certain strategy, and a card that would help them comes into your hand, you can “hold it” or play it yourself to prevent them from getting it. There is a calculated risk in tying up your own resources to deny them a card, but there are times when it will make a difference.

[avram]

You an do that in San Juan, too, but it's a costly tactic, since each card you build represents about 10% of your total builds over the course of the game.

As for keeping it in your hand, well, when I first started playing Race, I had the habit of holding onto good cards for later building, typing up a chunk of my hand. I nearly always lost when doing this.

[onigame.livejournal.com]

The sporting event I most often liken RftG to is track cycling. To the casual observer, there doesn't seem to be much interaction between the players -- everyone might as well just be biking around the track individually and then having their scores compared. It's not like the bikers get to kick other racers when they pass by them or throw obstacles or anything like that. But people who study the race more realize that there's a ton of strategy in aerodynamics, slipstreaming, and deciding when you're going to pass.

[citruscommando.livejournal.com]

I've always liked Settlers for just that reason. You can get in your opponent's way, but only just barely. The way to win is to make better choices than your opponents. And, have the dice like you a little bit, too. :)

I haven't done any serious boardgame stuff in quite a number of years. It'd be nice to get back to playing every once in a while...

[mneme]

Hmm. Well, aside from the Columbia group, there's a Meetup that meets to do boardgames at Neutral Ground every other Thursday (I used to do it, though I've been mostly doing D&D on thursdays lately).