Hei everybody

I am a boardgamer live in Hong Kong. I know boardgame is becoming
popular among Korean and there are a number of Boardgame cafe. Actually
i want to ask something about boardgame in Korea. I will be in Seoul in
coming July, is there any game retailer in those tourist area. thanks

Interviews by an Optimist # 31 - Steve Jackson

Steve Jackson graduated from Rice University in Houston. While there,
he spent most of his time playing wargames and working on the student
paper, the Thresher (he spent two years as editor). He became a writer
and game publisher, proving that college can be very valuable if you
don't let classes get in your way.

He has survived involvements with the Republican Party (alternate
delegate to the 1972 convention, but he got better - he now considers
himself a Libertarian), the SCA (former landed baron and National
Chronicler) and law school (escaping before the bar exam; game design
was more fun).

Steve's first professional design work was for Metagaming, which
published his Ogre, G.E.V., Melee, Wizard, and several other games. In
1980, Steve bought The Space Gamer magazine from Metagaming and
started his own company. One of his first games, Raid on Iran, was a
critical and sales success. The next year, Steve Jackson Games
released its first big hit, Car Wars . . . followed shortly by
Illuminati, and later by GURPS, the "Generic Universal Roleplaying
System."

In 1983, Steve was elected to the Adventure Gaming Hall of Fame - the
youngest person ever so honored. He now spends far too much time
helping to manage Steve Jackson Games Incorporated, which at the
moment employs 15 people.

The company made national news in 1990 after the disastrous Secret
Service intrusion, which nearly forced the company out of business by
seizing hardware and data files. SJ Games filed suit against the
Secret Service and the US government, and won more than $50,000 in
damages. Steve remains occasionally active with the Electronic
Frontier Foundation, which works to prevent similar miscarriages of
law enforcement. The local group he helped to found, EFF-Austin, has
now been subsumed into Electronic Frontiers Texas.

He still writes, when he finds the time. In the 1980s, he tried his
hand at interactive books or "game novels" (his first, Scorpion Swamp,
was published by Penguin and spent six months on the British
children's bestseller list). In 1994, he reworked the old faithful
Illuminati to jump on the trading-card bandwagon. INWO (Illuminati:
New World Order) became the company's biggest hit yet, and its first
million-dollar ship.

In addition to gaming, Steve is a dedicated SF reader and fan, and
enjoys attending both gaming and SF conventions. He writes folksongs
(adequately) and sings (very badly). He still claims to be working on
an interactive computer game about running the Worldcon; the beta-test
version has been due Real Soon Now for several years. He is a
confirmed computerphile and net addict. His other interests include
gardening (especially water gardening), beekeeping, dinosaurs and
tropical fish. In his copious free time, he reads, eats and sleeps.

Tom:  Steve, has the focus of SJ games changed over the years?  What
game would you consider the "flagship" game of your company currently?

Steve: We've been around for 20 years, and yes, the focus has changed
more than once. We started off doing minigames, for instance.

Right now I would say that GURPS and Munchkin share the flagship role.

Tom:  Munchkin has a huge popularity rate amongst many people.  Were
you surprised by its success?

Steve: Yes. Surprised and delighted!

Tom:  It seems that many of your new games focus on humor rather than
game mechanics.  How important do you think the theme is when
producing a game?

Steve: Very. There are different styles of design; many European games
focus on mechanics and theme is an afterthought. This sometimes
produces very fun games that are "about" something totally off the
wall. I always start with theme; I want to know what I'm designing the
game about, and come up with mechanics to support it.

Tom:  Can humor (theme) take a low to mediocre game and make it an
enjoyable experience?

Steve: What is a "low to mediocre game"?

Tom:  I apologize, I should clarify.  Sometimes, when playing a
humor-based card game, such as Battle of the Bands, I feel that while
the theme is very humorous, the mechanics are only "so-so".  I wonder
if I might not play the game if the theme wasn't involved. What are
your thoughts on this?

Steve: OIC. Okay. No, I think that if a game is no fun, it's no fun. I
have seen card games in particular where reading through the cards
ONCE is a lot of fun, but the play of the game is deadly dull. Humor
can add to the fun, but it can't supply it where none exists.

Tom:  You dabbled in the CCG market with INWO.   Do you see something
like that in the future, or has the market died for that sort of game?

Steve: The CCG market has not died, but it's chancy and largely
dominated by unplayable concoctions based on big licenses. Not
something I want to get involved in right now.

Tom:  Do you consider Munchkin and the like (Chez Geek, etc.) a sort
of collectible card games?

Steve: I assume you're asking that because there are supplements, but
no. I don't think they appeal to the same audience. There's no rarity,
there's no deck building, there's no collector mania and no Mister
Suitcase.

Tom:  What crowd do you think your games appeal most to?  Do you have
crossovers from role players, etc.?

Steve: Since one of our big games IS a RPG, yes, we get a lot of
roleplayers  :-)

And Munchkin parodies a certain style of RPG, so it takes a
role-player to really get it.

Tom:  Does SJ Games emphasize board/card games, or RPGs more?  Is it
hard to keep a balance between the two?

Steve: We do them both and definitely don't have any intent to
emphasize one over the other. Over short periods of time one may get
more support (for instance, last year we released the Fourth Edition
of GURPS, and there was a lot of RPG hoopla). There's no particular
trouble in keeping a balance . . . we have more ideas in both genres
than we have time to pursue . . .

Tom:  Some critics have accused SJ Games of producing games that
aren't worth their cost.  How does SJ games compete in a board gaming
world where component-heavy games, such as Heroscape, Memoir '44, or
Doom: the Boardgame, dominate?

Steve: If you look at a game as a toy purchase, yep, Doom's the way to
go ... Lots of toys there. It will be interesting to see if it's still
on shelves in a year, and again in two years.

If the question is "How many hours of play do I get out of the
components?" then some of these component-heavy games aren't much of a
deal.  Here I point to the ultimate light-component, heavy-play-value
publisher, Cheapass.  In the end, if a game isn't worth the cost,
people won't keep buying it, year after year.

Tom:  I understand the light-component value of games by companies
such as Cheapass.  But those games are also dirt-cheap.  Why are the
prices for SJ games so high, without the component quality of other
companies' games?

Steve: Since you press the question, I can try to give you an answer
you like better. But that's not a criticism that I see in my own mail,
and the retailers certainly aren't telling us we're overpriced . . .
and they weren't shy at all, a couple of years ago, when we released
X-BUGS, and they thought it cost too much. (We were paying a license
fee on that one, unfortunately.) We've now got games running from
$9.95 (Spooks - a deck of cards) to $59.95 (Deluxe GEV, two big color
maps, rules, three plastic boxes, and a whole bunch of metal minis).
So I guess I'd have to know exactly which games "a lot of people on
the Internet" are complaining about and what they're comparing to. I
do go into stores
and see boxes of plastic toys selling for $25 or $30, but I don't even
think we're in the same marketplace . . . the people who are impressed
by "component value" over "play value" will *never* be my customers.
That said, I'm working on a couple of projects with more elaborate
components, but they will NOT be cheap. Most of our press runs are in
the 5,000 to 10,000 area, and we price everything we do to get a
reasonable markup and stay in business . . .

Tom:  These projects with "elaborate components" sound interesting.
Can you give us any more info on them?

Steve: No.  :)

Tom:  Oh well.  Are there any new games coming that you can tell us about?

Steve: I won't say that I have NEVER announced a new release in an
interview before the regular site posting, but I sure can't remember
the last time. Is there anything in
http://www.sjgames.com/newproducts/ that you'd like to know more
about?

Tom:  No, nothing in particular.  Let's talk about you, as a gamer.
What are some of your favorite games?

Steve: Of my own: Munchkin for a quick card game, or Illuminati for a
longer one. Ogre for a boardgame. And I really liked X-Bugs but the
market didn't "get it." Tribes for a roleplaying game, even though
really it's not, because really you DO roleplay if you're doing it
right.

I didn't create UltraCorps, but SJ Games owns it now because I really
liked it - enough to pay to rescue it from oblivion. Coming soon to a
web browser near you . . . ! I'm having too much fun with the
playtest.

Other games: Risk. Axis & Allies. I've really enjoyed several games of
Puerto Rico recently.  Parts Unknown. Starcraft. Haven't played
Diplomacy for years, but someday...

Tom:  What group do you cater your games towards?  I'm assuming it's
not the "Euro" games crowd.

Steve: Different groups for different types of games. Munchkin and
most of our other card games are aimed at people who want fast social
play and like to laugh.  GURPS is aimed at roleplayers who actually
like roleplaying, as opposed to, say, munchkining  :-)

Tom:  As a publisher, which conventions do you find are the best for
publicizing your games?

Steve: Small and medium-sized ones, always. I get the chance to
interact with everyone who wants to meet me. Large ones are only a
good use of time if I'm a GoH and they get their scheduling right. I'm
remembering the recent Origins where I was a GoH and the con (a)
designated my main talk as 'ticket required', and (b) somehow managed
to list the event as sold out while distributing no actual tickets.
The only attendees in that biiiiiiig room were the people who decided
to take a chance on finding an open seat. They succeeded.

Tom:  How does internet buzz and reviews of your games affect sales?

Steve: I can't quantify it, but certainly it's good to have people
saying they like the games!

Tom:  What have you found to be the best way to spread word about your games?

Steve: Not depending on any one way is the best way! We spend a lot of
time on our website, but we also work hard to get information to
distributors and through them to retailers. We publish a regular color
catalog, and our Men In Black volunteer program reaches lots of stores
and conventions with demonstrations.

Tom:  Have you ever tried to get your games into a mass-market medium,
such as Toys 'R Us, or WalMart?

Steve:  What, Barnes & Noble doesn't count?

We've looked into the two you mention. TRU, aside from apparently
being dead at the moment, is not attractive to us, nor we to them,
because their buyers are not impressed by products that are not
supported by mass-media campaigns. WalMart actually carries our line
in its online section, but they buy from one of our distributors, not
direct from us,
and we're not in their stores.

Tom:  How are games designed at SJ games?  Do designers singly work on
a game, or do you have a team of people develop each game?

Steve: Typically, one person does the initial design, and one or more
people then get involved as "developers" to polish it.

Tom:  Do you accept game submissions, or do you have an "in-house"
group of designers?

Steve: We do accept submissions - see
http://www.sjgames.com/general/guidelines/ - but most of our GAME
design is done in-house. By contrast, most of the RPG books we publish
are written out of house.

Tom:  What advice would you have for budding game designers?

Steve: "Don't quit your day job."

Tom:  Steve, thanks for taking the time for this interview.  Do you
have any final words for our readers?

Steve: Okay. If you've got a good local gaming store, SUPPORT them. If
your local gaming store isn't good, ask yourself if some friendly
feedback would help MAKE them good . . .
        And if you know somebody who ought to be a gamer but isn't . .
. or who used to be, and doesn't think he has the time any more . . .
invite him to a game. Spread the hobby!

Tom Vasel
"Real men play board games."
April, 2005

When I first saw pictures of Big Deal (Amigo Spiel, 2001 - Gal
Zukerman, Tzvika Harpaz, Roy Wagner, and Yoel Rotem) on the internet,
it had instant appeal.  I must confess that it was simply the
components and the bright colors - but a game that looks that exciting
must be exciting, right?  I was a little tired of dull box covers,
like that of Goa or Puerto Rico, so the flashy gaudiness of Big Deal
had me interested.  It did take a while for me to get a copy of the
game, however, as it was never produced in English.  After quite a bit
of time, I was finally able to procure the game in a trade and was
pleased to see that it was as bright as the pictures portrayed.

	 Then I went to snag a copy of the English translation of the rules
from www.boardgamegeek.com and was surprised to see that the game had
an overall ranking of 1916, which is fairly low at that site.  I read
the rules and was curious as to why the ranking was so low, since the
whole economic model of the game seemed to portray a fairly fun
system.  Who doesn't like to handle billions of dollars?  After
playing the game, I'm still not sure why people don't like the game; I
found it quite enjoyable.  Games that have a lot of money transactions
but without the rolling of dice are desirable to me.  There is a
decent amount of luck in the cards that a player draws, but knowing
when to buy and sell and when to attack another player is the crux of
the game.

	 A board is placed in the middle of the table - mostly to hold four
resource wheels in place.  Each wheel holds resources of one of four
types (labor, space, energy, and machinery).  The resources have a
cost associated with them printed on the board, starting off fairly
low and escalating.  A deck of cards is prepared, depending on the
amount of players with a number (five to seven) of shares of several
companies (eight to eleven) mixed with some "Cash cards".  Seven "Game
Over" cards are inserted into the deck - randomly, but with some of
them in each half of the deck.  Each player is dealt five cards, as
well as given one billion dollars.  Each player after the first gets
an additional $150 for each player who goes before them.  The
remainder of the money goes in the bank on the board - next to an area
known as the "Shares Pool".  The first player takes their turn with
play proceeding clockwise around the board.

	 On a turn, a player first draws the top card from the deck, adding it
to their hands.  If a player draws a "Game Over" card, they place it
in the middle of the board and draw another card to take its place.
The player then receives any income from any companies that it has
started on previous turns, earning the number shown in green on the
share cards.  The player then may take the following actions, in any
number or order they desire:
- They may buy and sell shares to the "Shares Pool", utilizing the
white number on each card for the price.
- They may buy up to three resources and/or sell up to three
resources.  Each resource commands the price of the lowest open slot
on the resource wheel.
- They may start a new company, playing at least two shares of that
company down on the table, and the required resource for that company
(shown on the shares card.)  The shares and attached resources are
placed in front of the player.
- They may add or take away shares from a company they own, as long as
they have at least two shares on the table.
- They may split a company they own, in order to double income.  Each
part of the company must have at least two shares and a full set of
resources with it.
- They may sell a company to the bank - discarding the shares,
receiving the white number + $50 million for each share.  The player
keeps the resources.
- They may attempt to take over another player's company.  They must
play at least one share of the company they are taking over from their
hand, and then make an offer (per share) to the "defender".  The
defender then may make a counter-offer, and this continues until one
player drops out.  The winner buys the shares of the loser (although
not the resources.)  A cash card can be substituted for a share in the
company by the attacker.  If the attacker wins, they get a special
income from the company if they can open it immediately.
- They may use a cash card to target two other players, taking $50
million from each per each share and each unassigned resource.

After a player's turn, they must discard down to five share cards
randomly chosen by the player next to them. (I've never seen this
happen).  Play continues until the last Game Over card is revealed.
At this point players may sell all their shares and resources back to
the bank for a flat fee of $150 million each.  The player with the
most money is then declared the winner!

Some comments on the game...

1.) Components:  The game, as I said before, is a garish treat for the
eyes - in bright red, blue, green, and yellow.  Each resource
cardboard token has a different symbol and color, and they fit very
nicely into the plastic resource wheels that are held down by the
board.  The colors on the resources match the colors on the cards, and
you can place the resources on the side of the cards - everything is
very intuitive.  The money is a little under-impressive, as my copy is
cut poorly, and money just doesn't hold up very well to massive
handling.  Of course, you can just do what I do with many games, and
that is to substitute poker chips.  Everything does fit well into the
brightly colored box, which is a typical medium size.

2.) Rules:  The rulebook is indeed beautiful, although I was stuck
with the six-page translation by D P Long, which was done rather well.
  I found the rules pretty simplistic, as the only thing that is
slightly complicated are the takeovers.  I was able to teach the games
to teenagers very easily; everyone picked up on how to play.

3.) Money:  Determining the monetary value of shares is not intuitive,
however.  It's difficult to know exactly how much company shares are
worth and when you should sell them.  A player has to start selling
off their stuff before the immediate end of the game, or they'll be
forced to sell many shares and resources for a loss.  Selling and
buying resources is a little easier to grasp, because they are so
necessary.  How long should a player sit on a company, and how much
cash should they keep on hand?  Because of these questions, I found
that the game was a fairly educational tool for showing cash flow.
Yes, I doubt that any of us will be handling billions of dollars any
time soon.  But the principles are the same, and the massive amounts
are just fun to throw around!  Over $50,000,000,000 is included in the
game - more than almost any other I own.

4.) Shares:  Each company is different - needing a different amount of
resources, and having different payoffs.  Usually players will attempt
to just work with the shares they initially draw in their hands; but
since players are usually strapped for cash, there are usually a lot
of shares available in the shares pool.  Watching what other players
buy and sell is also helpful.  Throwing down a profitable company may
seem like a no-brainer, but it makes your company a huge target, and
hostile takeovers WILL happen in this game.

5.) Takeovers:  Thin-skinned people shouldn't play this game, as
hostile takeovers happen many times throughout the game - I saw the
same company get exchanged over five times in one game.  It's annoying
to put a lot of money in a company only to have it taken over, and
players must be careful to keep some cash on hand to fight off
intruders.  There are a limited amount of companies, so takeovers are
necessary; and as long as every takes them in good spirits, it's a lot
of fun.

6.) Cash Cards:  The cash cards are fairly powerful, but an
inexperienced player will just quickly use them.  Saving them to use
so that a player gets a maximum benefit is a sign of a canny player.
The cash cards are the most "lucky" part of the game for me.  It
doesn't seem to matter what shares a player gets; they can work with
what they have.  But cash cards are ALWAYS good, so a player who gets
several of them can easily absorb another player's company.  I like
the cash cards but may look for a variant to tone them down in power a
bit.

7.) Fun Factor:  If you don't mind the fact that money and companies
are changing hands every turn, then this might be an excellent game
for you.  We had a lot of fun opening and closing companies, and
taking over someone else's company gives one sadistic pleasure.  Some
people may not like the confrontation in this game - it's GOING to
happen; so if you don't like it, I would recommend you to stay far
away.

I realize that part of my enamored enthusiasm with the game is
probably the cool components.  But I'm also a sucker for economic
games that allow me to handle billions of dollars.  Combining these
two elements with a "take that" kind of game that's actually pretty
fun makes me happy.  Games aren't too long, as players only have a few
options per turn, and players must be alert at all times, hoping their
companies aren't the target of a takeover; so downtime is minimal.  I
don't know if I would recommend people go out of their way to find Big
Deal - it's not a great game, but it's fun enough to pick up if you
have the opportunity.

Tom Vasel
"Real men play board games."

I have given Lost Cities a ranking of "10" at www.boardgamegeek.com,
the only two-player game to get that rating from me.  This is because
it's the one two-player game that my wife loves, and the one that I've
had the most success teaching.  But my personal favorite, the one that
I'm most enthralled with, is Battle Line (GMT Games, 2000 - Reiner
Knizia.)  Known by many as Schotten Totten, Battle Line is the exact
same game with only a different theme and some special cards added.
Either way, I was thrilled to hear that GMT was reprinting the game
last year, so gladly picked up a copy when it was available.

	 Maybe part of the reason I like Battle Line so much is that it's all
about numbers.  It has a slight flavor of poker; but the things I
enjoy the most about it are the proofs, when you can successfully show
your opponent that they cannot win a specific battle.  Perhaps some
people won't like the math overtones of the game, and the fact that
the theme is an obvious paste on.  But I will contend that it's
Knizia's best two-player game; and that although luck plays a
decent-sized role, that skillful play will result in victory.  If
you're looking for a fairly quick, intriguing two-player game, I can't
recommend Battle Line highly enough.

	 A deck of sixty "Troop" cards is shuffled, composed of six suits -
each numbered one to ten.  Players are dealt seven of these cards,
along with one Tactics card (from a shuffled deck of ten.)  Nine
wooden pawns (flags) are placed in a row between players, and one
player is chosen to go first, with play alternating thereafter.  On a
turn, a player may play a Tactics card, which has some sort of special
effect but may only play one more Tactics card than their opponent
has.  Usually, however, a player will play one of the Troop cards
adjacent to one of the flags on their side.  Players are trying to
make "formations" of cards in one of the following ways, ranked from
highest to lowest.
- Three cards of the same color with consecutive values,
- Three cards with the same value,
- Three cards of the same color,
- A "straight" of three (i.e. "4", "5", "6")
- Anything else.
If the players have two of the same ranked formation, the formation
with higher numbers is the winner; ties are lost by the person who
played the last card.

	 Before a player's turn, they may claim flags if possible.  If they
have a completed formation of three cards by any flag, and it is
higher than the opponent's formation; or they can prove (with cards
already played) that their opponent cannot make a higher formation,
they claim the flag, moving it to their side of the table.  If a
player claims three flags in a row, or five flags total, they win the
game (or hand).

Some comments on the game...

1.) Components:  GMT isn't the highest bastion of quality, and this
game isn't an exception.  The cards look nice but are rather thin,
making them vulnerable to repeated play.  The "flags" are red wooden
pawns, which are functional, although knowing how far to space them on
the table can be a pain - I prefer the card rocks from Schotten
Totten.  The box for the game is a good size and fairly sturdy,
although it's rather large for the game.  When traveling, I take all
the pieces out and store them in a much smaller box.  Still, with all
these minor complaints, the game is relatively inexpensive, although
I've seen it sold out in several places.

2.) Rules:  The rules are pretty clear with a lot of examples to
explain exactly what formations beat other formations.  I still have a
complaint about this, as a reference card would be extremely helpful
to new players.  I have my own reference cards that I've made up, but
it would have been nice for GMT to include it in the game.  The game
is easy to teach, although new players will find it a bit daunting
when first playing.  Where should you put your first card?

3.) Luck:  Shortly before I typed this interview, I played a couple
games with my wife for fun.  I told her happily before playing that I
had lost the game only once - upon which she proceeded to thrash me.
So to keep my honor intact, I declared the game full of luck.  And in
all seriousness, there is a decent amount of luck in the game -
comparable to that in Lost Cities.  But I will contend that a superior
player will win most of the time and that there is the room for a lot
of options here.  Yes, sometimes you'll draw the card you need the
turn after you played another card in that spot, but I think the game
is fun because of that - rather than despite it.

4.) Tactics:  At first, I steadfastly resisted using the Tactics
cards.  I had just migrated over to Battle Line from Schotten Totten,
which doesn't have Tactic cards, and I thought they diluted the game.
So I refused to play them, limiting my opponent to only one per game.
But then I saw how useful that one card could be, even though I prided
myself on winning the games anyway.  And eventually I started using
them and found that while they added some chaos to the game, making it
feel less "pure" to me that they were actually fun.  The rule about a
player only able to play one more than their opponent is rather nice
and adds a little bit of checks and balances to the game.

5.) Proofs and Fun Factor:  For me, the ability to have fairly perfect
knowledge in the game and proving that the opponent cannot win a
specific flag is a tremendous thrill.  I've found that the game is
useful in teaching introductory logic to kids, as this game uses a lot
of it.  But the game isn't simply logic, as there are a lot of risk
taking moves; watching what your opponent does both in their moves and
the reactions on their face is incredibly important.

Not everyone I play this game with "gets it", therefore keeping it
from being a "10" in my book.  Still, it's my absolute favorite
two-player game to pull out, and I've played it more than any game in
the Kosmos two-player line (except Lost Cities).  I give it high
praise; and if you liked Lost Cities, this is the next step in the
natural progression.  Battle Line was out of print for a while, and
high demand finally brought back a second printing.  Get a copy of it
now before it goes out of print again!

Tom Vasel
"Real men play board games."

Interviews by an Optimist # 30 - Frank Nestel

Frank gives this bulleted biography of himself...
* Born exactly 472 years after Columbus arrival in America.
* First game published around 1979 "Oym Hunt" for HP-41C (compare
http://frank.spieleck.de/oym-hunt/)
* Civil service 1985/1986.
* Met Doris 1988.
* Software Development for money since 1988.
* First visit in Essen Game Fair 1988
* First board games published 1989 ("Dicke Kartoffeln").
* First self-published game with D&F logo ("Eselsrennen") 1989.
* MD in Math 1992.
* Married to Doris 1992.
* First contact to "the internet" 1993.
* First ordered game from USA around 1994.
* First contact with AngloAmerican playing attitude ("Sumo") around 1995.
* PhD in Math 1996.
* Since 1996 working as software engineer.
* First appearance at Alan Moons Gathering of Friends 1997.
* Birth of son Jari 2002.

Tom:  You've designed several games, many of them enjoyed greatly by
gamers around the world.  Which of your games is your personal
favorite?

Frank: Usually when I do not play new games, I try to adapt the games
we play to the situation and the people. And we just published all
those game, because we liked to play every single of them. So I'm not
good at choosing among them.

To make a negative choice, I'll probably not play "Fugger, Welser,
Medici" anytime soon again, even if I get invited; it just takes too
much time. Everything else I'd gladly play and/or explain if asked.

Having enough time to play, I'd suggest probably "Ursuppe" (aka
"Primordial Soup"), having less time "Igel Ärgern," and having even
less time "Banana Republic". What we actually play most often of our
own games recently is "Zoff im Zoo" (aka "Frank's Zoo").

Now I have mentioned quite a few of our published games. But when a
new idea is hot, what I like to play most is my latest prototype.

Tom:  Why did you decide to produce your own games, rather than have
another publisher put them out?

Frank: Actually, we started with 2 games in 1989. The first one was
"Dicke Kartoffeln" which was published by Abacus. Then nobody else
came to buy "Eselsrennen". Both finished in the top 5 of the Herner
Game Author competition. Since no one instantly bought Eselsrennen, we
tried to publish it. We started with 250 copies, prepared to do 800.
It wasn't much of a decision; we spent the money for about one
vacation, and we
spent much more time than one vacation to work out and partially
handcraft the production. One good review in Fairplay actually sold us
the 800. Now we knew we could produce, and we knew we could probably
sell 1,000 if it was a good game. From other authors we heard that
waiting to be published could take a very long time, and then "the big
ones" change your game.

That's why we printed "Igel Ärgern" ourselves. We essentially
reinvested the complete money earned from "Eselsrennen". We had no
booth in Essen "Spiel 1990", but I had a big rucksack filled with
"Igel Ärgern". I was willing to play it with every shop owner and to
sell whatever I could and then to refill my rucksack in the car. "Igel
Ärgern" is selling now for over 15 years, and it never did explode,
which we couldn't have handled; but it also never decreased. This was
a good basis.

So to make it short, first it was impatience, then it was fun without
a risk and later it became kind of a habit. Once you had played
"publisher" a few years it seemed kind of hard to go back. When we
presented a game to a company, we had to argue that it was not only
our second best.

Tom:  What game was your first big seller?

Frank: What's a big seller? For a larger company maybe none of our
games was a "big seller". But compared to the company size and what we
expected at the particular time, Eselsrennen, Igel Ärgern, Mü, Ursuppe
and Zoff im Zoo/Frank's Zoo were big sellers. Especially of Zoff im
Zoo/Frank's Zoo we sold as many as Amigo sold of Mü. Since we are a
"No-Ad", no distribution company, essentially ignored by the large
trade networks, we were quite satisfied. This was our biggest seller
in terms of absolute numbers.

Tom:  Ursuppe is one of my favorite games of yours - it has a lot of
depth.  Can you tell us about the design of the game - how the idea
came to you, what games influenced it,
etc.?

Frank:  This sounds a bit like the "do you start with a theme or a
mechanics" question. Actually, I change; sometimes a theme came first,
sometimes a mechanic.

But the inspiring game for Ursuppe was "Risk" by Mr. Lamorisse. The
observation was that territorial games like Risk have a tendency to
stabilize regionally. I.e. if you are not a fan of counting majorities
in certain regions and figuring chances for an attack, the board
becomes very static, the upper left region is blue and the lower right
is red and the borders are moving slowly in one direction without too
much of a visual change. This is not beautiful; it also looked
unrealistic since it ignored the practical problem of logistics, of
supporting high concentrations of power in a small territory. This
triggered the idea to have a board game with two interacting "layers"
-- one layer of resources which supports a second layer of, kind of
armies.

It looked like in making the layer interaction interesting it should
be circular. Since resources appearing by an own independent set of
rules, the game would probably still be too static in the above sense
at some stage. When "armies" actually not only consumed resources, but
also produced other ones, there would be feedback between those two
layers.  This gave rise to the biological setting of organisms feeding
some kind
of resources while creating other ones. (Well, of course Doris and I
are fans of "biological" settings. This must have something to do with
our German after war education. But after all, armies seem to merely
consume all kinds of resources and to feed only very limited local
business...  But this is a setting for an American author :-))

Then it looked like to make this concept to be handled in a boardgame,
not a computer game, the basic rules needed to be very simple. On the
other hand, to make the game interesting, it needed additional
complexity, this gave birth to the idea of evolving creatures or gene
features in the sense of Ursuppe and of starting with the most
primitive
creature one can think of. At this point the theme took over. We
playtested different types of feeding/excreting mechanisms with
different kinds of gene sets for quite a few years. The first test
games only contained 6 different genes, but every game triggered
players' ideas for new features. So while starting with one mechanical
idea, my feeling is that Ursuppe is created from its theme rather than
from a mechanic. The above considerations were ideas found in a few
inspired nights, the playtesting took way longer.

[This is maybe for the mathematically inclined. While Ursuppe is a so
called discrete system (which means you can know the state of the game
by precisely counting everything) and therefore cannot really be
chaotic in the sense of Chaos Theory, it is very close to a chaotic
system. Think of one missing foodstuff cube making an amoeba starve
and die and feeding a new generation of other amoebas, which makes a
huge difference of having that one cube and simply feeding. It
actually turned out that this made playtesting kind of hard, since a
slight change of the basic rules tended to destroy much of the gene
balancing work done on the previous version.  On the other hand I
guess that this chaos aspect actually makes people feel this is a
"deep" game. Even in the case where you could predict your opponents
choices, the evolving situations are not easily predicted.  Writing
this, maybe I should think of another "near chaos" system some time
for a new game ;-)]

Tom:  Ursuppe, along with some of your other games, includes your
wife's name in the credits.  How much is she involved in your game
design?

Frank: Probably I'm more than 50% of the author part of our games. I
am 100% of the technical mechanics of the game. Doris works on themes;
she suggests how a prototype can be better visualized. Her ideas can
have feedback on the mechanics again. So she can be my source of
inspiration for mechanics. She also is one of the tougher reviewers of
my ideas.  Tough reviewers are very important in playtesting. And
maybe most important, she decided that "Ursuppe" and "Frank's Zoo"
(and maybe some more, I'm not sure) are finished. I'd probably still
be play testing "Ursuppe" if she didn't stop me. And it would probably
have become only a different game not necessarily a better one over
time.

In any case she is much more of an author than I'm an artist.

Tom:  Your wife's illustrations appear in many games (how many?).
Between that and your game designing, do you ever just get a little
tired of games in general?

Frank: I'm very bad at accounting jobs. I constantly fail to keep the
list of Doris games on our homepage
(http://192.168.0.4/homeneu/dartwork_de.html) up-to-date and complete,
and Doris doesn't even care about this list. But it looks like she's
just around her one hundredth game right now.

Actually we both think we don't play enough right now. We are busy
with our little one, with the production and distribution part of our
tiny company, Doris with her artwork and me with my regular job. So
currently we both hope for some more time to play again, when Jari
gets older. Maybe I'm getting a bit too old and impatient to play
longer games (3+ hours) again. I prefer smaller formats right now. But
beside that I'm not tired of gaming at all.

Tom:  Do you think producing your own board games is worth it
financially?  What are the benefits and disadvantages?

Frank: Basically we see it this way, it's a cheap hobby, it consumes
lots of our time, like every hobby does; but instead of spending some
money, you earn something. Well, of course the game must not be too
poor.

Actually with two fresh enough top games (say Ursuppe and Frank's Zoo)
we scratch the region where it becomes commercially feasible. That is,
it pays your bills with an acceptable amount of time spent. It still
won't get you rich. Unfortunately the business model "first publish
yourself, then sell a big license" does not really seem work.

On the benefits side, you decide when and how your game appears; it is
fast, you don't have to beg for publication; no one tries to "improve"
your idea; you don't have to look at the huge market; initially you
only need to find 1,000 to 2,000 people who want to have your game.
You also sell in an informed market, need not much advertisement and
get lots of inspiring feedback. You have a great gaming time at the
Essen Spiel fair playing a favorite of your own with many different
people.

One of the drawbacks is one the benefits: Sometimes the companies
manage to improve a game by their professional analysis and finish. It
is a pity when a game launches only in its second best version. This
concerns both mechanics and artwork. More often artwork, but this is a
problem we do not have, simply because we have a very good artist.
Comparing money made is difficult, if you publish yourself, you sell
fewer games, but you earnsomewhat more per game. If you have many,
many game ideas, you probably don't have the time to produce it
yourself.

After all, publishing games of your own is like playing with some real
money; I'd rather invest in a idea of ours I like, than to throw coins
in a slot machine or buy a lottery ticket.

Tom:  I see that Z-man Games has produced Ursuppe in English
(Primordial Soup).  Will you license out any other of your games?

Frank: Yes, of course, everyone can buy us :-) No kidding, we love to
sell licenses, we just want to keep our little company intact, so if
you want to buy (say) "Igel Ärgern" for Germany, we won't sign. If you
do not have a minimum number of different games for sale, shops might
have objections to order from you. But we sold "Igel Ärgern" recently
for the Benelux region. And of course we have ongoing co-productions
with Rio Grande games for Mü and Frank's Zoo. But I have to confess,
we are not very actively promoting our policy, we just sit and wait
for someone to ask. Thank you for asking, please print this answer ;-)

Speaking of Z-Man, there was some interest, but first they'll have to
sell Ursuppe. Ursuppe comes in a box with lots of bits and pieces; it
was very difficult for them to produce it at a good price. They did an
excellent job; I'm very excited how good it works.

Tom:  When you sell your games, what other countries besides Germany
do you sell the most games into?

Frank: This is difficult to say precisely, since our games take very
different ways. We deliver to foreign shops, but so does our
distributor "Heidelberger Spieleverlag" and also some foreign shops
seem to order together with German ones.

USA was probably a leader but is on the decline, because there are now
licensed versions of Mü, Frank's Zoo and Ursuppe. UK is most likely
second. The further ranking also depends on the game. We sold many
Banana Republic games to Switzerland (don't ask why), essentially to
one shop. We sold lots of Mü and Ursuppe to Japan. And we continuously
sell games to the Netherlands.

Tom:  When you design a game, what are key things you include?

Frank: First answer, a hedgehog. OK, not seriously.

Second answer, I don't know, actually I do not have a checklist of
what to include.

Well, third answer, I don't know, but the games we develop are
supposed to be games we have fun playing. So the game should contain
something we haven't played before, at least a little novelty. It
should stimulate interaction between players. It should contain enough
choice. A working theme is great. I like games with a bit of a
learning curve (Though I know journalists do not have much time for
reviews, therefore really deep games --- think chess, go --- would
probably have a problem getting good reviews). And after all, besides
some serious gameplay, I like games that have some sense of humor.
Yes, I think I have serious problems with things taken too seriously.

I'd guess that when there is one guy in the world who has a checklist,
it could be Reiner Knizia. I think he is taking game development
seriously.

Tom:  What advice would you have for prospective designers?

Frank: Well, I've got some experience with those people trying to sell
you their top secret, ingenious idea which makes them rich
immediately. So first of all, do not expect commercial success easy or
soon. Only a few award winning games per year really contribute
significantly to their authors budget. This is a lottery. Money comes
from having a number of good games which do get published and
republished. Build up a reputation. But for more hints on commercially
successful game design, you might want
to talk to someone commercially successful, not me.

Having said that, for yourself as an author, lets look at your game.
Try to make the game designing process a fun experience, the game will
be better. Test carefully and often. Collect test players which do not
hesitate to point out all the problems they see. Good playtesting
sometimes hurts. You yourself have the delicate duty to love your
design and to be its first criticist. If you start with too immature
designs, you just spoil test players. You have to love your design and
in the next moment be ready to approach the game very differently.
Don't be shy to show your designs. In my experience ideas do not get
stolen very often, and showing your work is the only way to get
feedback, to improve.

When you present your games to companies, clearly explain what you
think is the most important part of the design. The people who judge
your game have to look at very many (think 1,000 a year) ideas; give
them a fast start.  They sometimes overlook great games and sometimes
buy poor ones; therefore you need to be sure yourself, how good your
design actually is.  And if you are sure you have a great game, be
patient, don't give up
until the players all over the world have a chance to play it.

Tom:  Have you designed games that, after playtesting, you just pretty
much gave up on?

Frank: Of course, plenty. We even have our most successful game at the
"Herne Game Author Contest" (this was our starting point in the gaming
world) that was never published.

Most of those games are probably dead forever; of some I do not even
find written rules any more, and I'm all puzzled about the box full of
bits, pieces, diagrams and some confusing rule fragments. Maybe I
should be more careful with my ideas. On the other hand also "Ursuppe"
and "Zoff im Zoo" spent a few years banned to my drawers until I
revisited them, found a solution of some problem and got one step
further. Especially "Frank's Zoo" matured a lot this way. Playtesting
for Mü and Frank's Zoo started at the same time, but the more complex
Mü in fact was published 4 years earlier. It is easier to fix complex
games. Fixing a simple game is hard, because adding a rule makes the
game less simple. You need to very carefully derive similar but
different rules to keep things simple.

Tom:  If you could go back and change any of the designs of your
early-published games, would you?

Frank: Me, Frank? Yes, of course, as stated before, most of the time
Doris decides when we are done. I'm never done, I can think about
improving everything.

Actually it varies, I usually get my first flood of new ideas for a
design in the week before Essen, before the game appears in print :-(
Then, after playing the design some dozen times in Essen, usually with
positive feedback, my mind settles a bit. This is the time in the
lifecycle of my own game, where I can play it well. When you think
"should I change my strategy, or should I change this rule" it is very
hard to play well. Actually I also fall into this split mindset trap
when playing other games not only own designs.

The number of ideas does not depend on the (conceived) quality of the
game. I consider Mü one of my better designs, but I sometimes have
ideas for a lighter, more accessible games along the lines of Mü. But
on the other hand I think I cannot publish a "Mü Light" anytime soon.
So I try to force myself not to hang on to those ideas, but sometimes
I do.

Tom:  Do you enjoy playing board games online?

Frank: Not really, actually I haven't done it lately. I enjoyed
playing speed chess in the mid-nineties when the first international
chess server opened. I enjoyed the international atmosphere. But then
they needed to optimize bandwidth and soon had European and German
servers and I stopped. I have seen those recent online board game
adaptations, most beautiful and often easier to handle than the real
board. For example, lots of bookkeeping is done by the computer. And
it is tempting to go and find someone to play whenever you want. But
playing board games online seems to lack something compared to sitting
at a table with people. I pay my bills implementing internet
technologies, but you can consider me old fashioned. Maybe I'll catch
up again sometime soon.

Tom:  What are your feelings about putting your board games online?

Frank: I like it. Many people enjoy playing board games online. I had
a colleague; she loved playing board games, but she played mostly
online. Our focus is, having our games played, we publish them because
we like to play them ourselves. And maybe sometimes a player also gets
back from the computer to the table and real people.

On the other hand I sometimes wonder if the different media shouldn't
actually have different games. I'm not fascinated about real time
online games; I'm not fascinated about real time games at all. But I
once participated in a 10,000 player massive parallel online game. The
game was poor and poorly documented (with computer games, exploring
the rules seems to be part of the game, with board games most people
want to know beforehand what they'll play), but the idea of playing
one game with many people simultaneously is great. There is just no
such big table for a board game. I think I have some ideas I'd like to
try with massive parallel games. But I haven't found time to work on
them yet.

Tom:  What games, besides your own, do you most enjoy playing?

Frank: This of course depends and changes over the years. I like to
play new games, I didn't play before. Though I play many of them only
once, because I do not play too often. Also the right game depends on
the circumstances, mood and other players. Of the older stuff Sleuth,
Kreml, Tichu, Vernissage or Ole. Of more recent games I enjoyed Metro,
Vinco, Cartagena, San Juan and Power Grid to name a few. But this is
more of a snapshot; I would probably come up with a somewhat different
list when I'm asked the next time.

Some years ago we also used to play Civilisation once a year, we
played with maximum players and those games took 12 to 14 hours. I
remember I used to dream about those games the next two nights or so.
Currently, I prefer shorter games and plan my next game of
Civilisation day sometime when I'm retired. Card games often come
handy, commercial ones, but also the ones played with a classical
deck. We met John McLeod the brain behind www.pagat.com a few times;
he can explain dozens of interesting games with standard decks.

Tom:  When playing so many games, do you find that mechanics and ideas
from them tend to creep into your own games?  How do you stay
original?

Frank: First of all I'm very sure we have an original artwork
everytime, thanks Doris.

I know people who play many more games than we do. Usually I can
hardly discuss quality of the game year with others, because I play
too few of the 200+ new games which hit the market every year. The
only time when I was sure to be original was when we did our first
games, but this was rather a lack of knowledge. But what keeps me
motivated putting effort into building prototypes writing and revising
rules and test playing is that I start with a theme or mechanics that
are new to me. This starting point seems to have worked so far. After
that I rely on people's judgment whether they consider my game a
novelty or not. This is when our testplayers decide and in the end our
buyers. The latter is, what sometimes makes me nervous shortly before
the Essen fair.

On the other hand one needs to play games just to learn how they work.
  Every now and then you learn beautiful new mechanics or a new use of
an old one. Sometimes playing an unrelated looking game gives me the
missing bit in a design I am currently work on. So you have to keep
balance between playing too many foreign designs and playing too few.
For this balance it is good to know people who play more than
yourself, they give you the clues of what to look at.

Finally, I have learned to recognize the author's styles in his games,
and I think others also recognize the style of a game. Like book
authors have their own style which is appreciated. While I'm not aware
of the style we actually stand for, for me, every one of our games is
very different from their predecessors; I wonder if some people buy
our games because of their particular "D&F" style? A part of the style
I'd like to stand for would be that our games are considered serious
but just not too serious; I think I've mentioned I seriously hate
things which are taken too seriously.

Tom:  So what can we expect to see from you in the future?  Are you
working on any new games now that you can tell us about?

Frank: I usually stick to the "predicitions are hard to make,
especially about the future"-policy. (BTW this quote, it is credited
to at least three people). I know I should be in control of the
process, but I am not. All I can say is; I'm working on some games,
but I'm proceeding very slowly.  I'm still waiting for my job and
family to give me some more time to play and for some other projects
of mine (e.g. http://anagramme.spieleck.de) to finish. I've currently
one game in a somewhat wider test audience.  This is a smaller game,
and it is not yet done. That's all I can say.

Tom:  Frank, thanks so much for your time in answering these
questions.  Any last words for our readers?

Frank: Tom, thank you for asking! Actually I found it inspiring
figuring the answers. Readers, I hope you've found something
interesting the way down this page. Enjoy board and card gaming on a
real world table; it is a great hobby. Personally, I'd like to remind
you to watch the small companies with their nearly neglectful market
share they seem to have an over proportional contribution of new ideas
and make gaming as exciting
and diverse as it is.

Tom Vasel
"Real men play board games"
April, 2005

Rome (GMT Games, 2001 - Reiner Knizia) is an unusual "Euro game."
This is because the box of Rome contains three distinct games inside
it: Imperium, Circus Maximus, and Hannibal vs. Rome.  All three of the
games share a common theme - that of ancient Rome; but other than
that, there's no pressing reason that all three of them needed to be
included in the same box except that Imperium and Hannibal vs. Rome
use the same game board.  It's a pretty clever idea, actually.  I
mean, the chance of a person liking one out of the three games is
fairly good, and I'm surprised that more multiple-games-in-one-box
aren't produced.  The box came chock full of wooden pieces and cards,
and I figured I'd like one of the games.

	 And fact was, I enjoyed two of them.  I had very mediocre to poor
feelings about Hannibal vs. Rome, but I thought that Circus Maximus
was a very good game, and that Imperium was a truly excellent little
game.  While I think that there are better chariot racing games than
Circus Maximus (Ave Caesar), the fact that it came packaged with one
of the fastest area control games I've ever played and a pseudo war
game (even though I didn't like it) makes the whole package worth
picking up.

	 Since there are three games in the box, I'll only briefly summarize each...

	 Hannibal vs. Rome is a two-player game covering the Second Punic War
between the Romans and the Carthaginians.  The Roman player gets eight
Legion units in Rome and three fleets in the adjacent ocean.  The
Carthaginian player gets six Legion units in Carthage, led by a
special Hannibal legion, and three fleets adjacent.  Both players get
a hand of cards numbered "1" to "5".  On each turn, players may move a
unit, change a legion to a fleet, or pass.  If a player moves onto a
spot where an opponent has a unit, each player must play a card from
their hand face down simultaneously.  The player who reveals the lower
number must remove one of their units from the board.  The battle
continues until only one player has units on the spot, and used cards
are set aside until a player has gone through all five, at which point
they get them all back.  All units have the same power, except
Hannibal's legion adds one to the value on their cards.  If a player
captures the capitol of their enemy, they win, if they accomplish a
certain territorial goal outlined in the rules, or if they eliminate
the other player.  Draws occur if both players pass consecutively.

	 Circus Maximus is an attempt to recreate the great chariot races of
that stadium.  Each player gets chariot cards numbered one to five,
and three chariots of their color.  A large track composed of scores
of hexes is placed on the table, and in player order, the chariots are
set up on the starting grid.  Each player puts their cards in a row in
front of them, and the race is ready to begin.  On a turn, the chariot
in the front goes first, with those behind following.  A player slides
forward one to three cards and moves one of their chariots that EXACT
amount, then flips the cards over.  Each chariot must have at least
one card assigned to it - even if the chariot cannot move and the card
is wasted.  When the turn is over, all cards are flipped back over,
and another turn begins.  When a chariot lands in one of the finish
spaces (after one lap), it is out of the race, and the first player to
get all three of their chariots to the finish line is the winner!

	 Imperium uses a map of the Mediterranean area, split into eight
provinces.  Each player chooses a color and takes eleven cards of that
color along with a pawn, which they place on a scoring track - and 14
influence markers.  A large black pawn is placed in the first province
(Africa), and the game is ready to begin.  At the beginning of each
turn, players choose three cards from their hand, placing them in a
pile face down in front of them.  Players then reveal the cards and
follow the instructions on them.  Most of the cards correspond to one
of the provinces on the board - if a player shows one of these cards,
they place one of their influence markers in that province.  If a
player plays a "Bread and Circuses" card, they add two influence
markers to the province card directly above it.  A couple other
special cards (Oracle and Ear of the Emperor) also add a one-time per
game effect for the player.  After all markers are placed, the
province containing the black marker is scored.  The player with the
most influence markers there gets the first number of points printed
on the board, with the second highest getting the next number, etc.
All influence markers are then removed, except for one influence
marker of the player who has the most influence in the sector.  This
marker is considered the "Proconsul", and is placed on the capital
city of the sector.  A player scores one bonus point for this capitol
plus one bonus point for each adjacent capitol they control in
adjacent territories (can be a chain.)   The black pawn moves to the
next province in a clockwise direction, and another turn occurs.  The
game continues until at least one player reaches forty points, at
which points the player with the most points wins!

Some comments on the game...

1.) Components:  I'm not normally a fan of the components of GMT
games; I think that they are merely okay.  But in this game, I'm
extremely pleased.  The double-sided board looks pretty good.  While
the Mediterranean map side is pretty standard fair, the chariot arena
is extremely impressive, with nice shadows and artwork (the crowd is
amazing), lending a very atmospheric touch to the game.  Piles of
wooden pieces come with the game - much more gratifying than counters.
  The pieces for Hannibal and Circus are both painted wooden rectangles
with stickers pasted onto them.  They're very chunky to the feel and
make the game very fun to play.  The cards for all the games, while a
little generic in their artwork, are of good quality; and the colors
are easy to distinguish from each other.  I did have to add some
plastic bags to the game to help sort between the pieces, as all three
games use red and blue pieces, causing some confusion.  Still, for the
amount of bits one receives, this is a good deal!

2.) Rules:  The fifteen pages of rules cover all three games, and all
are explained quite easily.  I found that all three games were
explained simply, and I actually wondered if anything had been left
out.  But rather, the games actually were that simplistic, and any
true depth to them came from tactics.  All of them were very easy for
me to teach - Imperium and Circus especially were able to be taught in
less then three minutes each.

3.) Hannibal vs. Carthage:  I personally disliked this game.  Knizia +
a war game just didn't really hit me in the right spot.  It felt
mechanical, solvable, and simply had very few options.  The board felt
small and constricted; I felt like I had only a few pieces, and all
the pieces acted the same.  It was almost like playing Chess with one
hand tied behind my back.  As you can tell, I didn't like it; although
I did play it with a person who was more enthusiastic than I.

4.) Circus Maximus:  If I had never played Ave Caesar, I would have
been very pleased to play this chariot racing game.  Even still,
Circus is an excellent racing game, where blocking your opponents is
the only real way to get ahead.  My only concern is that it seems like
the best strategy is to run one of your chariots as fast as you can to
the finish lines, then bring in the other two.  So far, every game won
has been by a person employing this strategy.  Still, the game is
intriguing enough to play regardless.

5.) Imperium:  Imperium is my favorite game of the lot, by far.  I
like Web of Power, because it's a fast, simple area-control game - a
"filler" with a lot of tactics and strategy.  Imperium is the same
thing, but for some reason I enjoy it much more.  It has much of the
same feel as Web of Power, connecting capitols, but adds simultaneous
selection to the mix - a feature I heartily enjoy.  Every game I've
played has been fast, fun, and many times down to the wire.  I believe
that Rome is worth buying on basis of this game alone.

6.) Time and Players:  Rome is a nice selection of games, with a
two-player game (Hannibal), and some two to five player games
(Imperium and Circus).  But what is truly nice is how quickly all
three games play.  Circus Maximus is the longest game of the three (a
little over a half hour), while the other two games are extremely
quick, lasting about fifteen minutes each.  That means that Rome has
the option to see a lot of play and is one of those games you can have
sitting around to play when you want to fill some time between other
games.

7.) Fun Factor:  There may be some who find fun in Hannibal, although
I found it a tedious math exercise - sort of a Lord of the Rings:
Confrontation with all the fun taken out of it.  The other two games
are a blast to play, however.  While Circus Maximus doesn't have any
"stand up on the table and scream Ave Caesar" moments, it's still fun
to play; and Imperium has a lot of "I can't believe you put your
tokens there!" moments when the cards are revealed.

As you can tell, I really liked Imperium, my favorite game of the
three - one that I would have thought worth getting even if the game
had been packaged alone.  Coming with the other two games was an added
bonus.  Even though I didn't like Hannibal, I didn't feel cheated, as
the other two games were certainly worth the price of the box.  If you
think that you'll like any two of these games, why not get it?  We
sadly won't often see three games packaged into one box.  It does
increase the chances of getting a game you like.  Rome may not contain
three great games; but it does have two good ones, and that's better
than most packages you buy these days...

Tom Vasel
"Real men play board games."

When Angelo Porazzi told me that he was sending me a copy of his
latest game, TaTaTa! (Angelo Porazzi Games, 2005 - Angelo Porazzi) in
a shipment to me, I was quite pleased.  I really enjoyed Angelo's
other two games: Peacebowl (a fun, light football-type game), and
Warangel (one of the best fantasy light war games I've ever played).
When I got the package, which had some more Warangel armies and other
games in it, I was a little confused.  Where was TaTaTa?  Finally,
when I opened a game, I found it - it was in a very small box, and I
almost missed it (along with Angelo's message to me - "To-To-Tom".  In
fact, as I type this review, I notice that I have to quickly scour my
desk to find the game.  TaTaTa is one of the smallest game packages I
have yet spreads out to be a fairly good-sized game.

Make no mistake, the small package doesn't mean the game isn't good.
I found TaTaTa! to be an interesting mix of mechanics, but in a
pleasing way.  The theme was that of an airplane race, where the
planes can shoot each other down and generally be a nuisance.  Those
expecting an experience like Wings of War will be surprised, though,
as TaTaTa! combines memory elements with card management, while
maintaining a bit of "take that" element.  It's fun, tactical, and
allows players to interact with each other.  Turns are fast, and
players have a lot of choices to make when playing the game.  It's a
nice light game that can easily be carried around - something that
fits the bill often in my case.

There are two versions of the rules: Basic and Advanced.  I'm just
going to briefly review the advanced rules, as I prefer them to the
rather simplistic basic rules.  Each player takes an airplane and
matching base card of their color.  The base cards are placed on the
board in a circle type formation, with three to seven "sky" cards
(depending on how long of a race you want) placed face down between
each - to form a race track.  Each player places their plane on the
non-smoking side onto their base.  A pile of thirty-six "deck" cards
are shuffled, and each player is given four of them for their starting
hand.  One player is chosen to go first, and then play proceeds
clockwise.

On a player's turn, they may play the cards from their hands to do
take actions.  Each card has four numbers, often different, in the
four corners of the cards.  Each number has a different color and
allows the player to do a different action.
- Black - Action!  The first card a player plays must use the black
number, which is the action number.  This number determines the total
amount of cards that player may use this round.
- Blue - Fly!  Blue numbers allow a player to move their plane a
number of cards up to the sum of all the Fly! cards used.  Planes may
not land on spaces that are occupied by other planes.
- Red - Tatata!  If an opponent's plane is directly in front of them,
a player may use a Tatata! card to fire at that plane.  A plane in a
base is safe from attack.
- Green - Move!  When being attacked by a Tatata! card, a player must
play a move card(s) with a total number higher than that on the
Tatata! card, to dodge the attack.
- Pink - Loop!  These cards allow a plane to use a Tatata! or other
cards to attack a plane directly behind them.

When a player moves their plane, the sky card they end up on is
revealed.  Some of these cards have no effect, but most do something
crazy or unusual.  Some of the sky cards have yellow borders, meaning
that they are picked up and added to the player's hand, who can use
them later.  These yellow-bordered cards allow special attacks, smoke
screens, and other odd effects.  After a player uses one of these sky
cards, they insert it back into the track wherever they want.  Other
sky cards, which cannot be picked up, include ones that give the
player extra cards, damage the plane, or allow the plane to hide from
others who are shooting at it.

Whenever a plane cannot avoid damage from a Tatata! card or a sky
card, they are flipped over to the "smoking" side.  If a plane is hit
while on the "smoking" side, they are returned to the previous base
and must spend one movement point to turn their plane back to the
non-smoking side, so they can continue the race.

As planes pass their starting base, the base is rotated to show what
lap they are on.  The first plane to successfully complete three laps
is the winner!

Some comments on the game...

1.) Components:  I really love the artwork on Angelo's game; he may be
a clever designer, but I think he's an artist first and foremost.  All
of the cartoonish, crazy artwork on the cards is from one large
picture, but Angelo maneuvers it so that each card feels differently -
and no two cards look alike.  Speaking of the cards, they are quite
small about the size of the cards of the original Ticket to Ride.
While this means that they may be too small for some, I thought the
small information contained on each card allowed this compact design.
The very small box that holds all the cards is very easy to carry
around, although it may not be as sturdy as it could be.  The cards
are of good quality and take a lot of wear easily.  Several blank
cards are included, so that players can design their own planes, sky
cards, or action cards.

2.) Rules:  The rules for the game that I initially read were a little
confusing, but Angelo has worked to make them more easily readable - I
was pleased with the latest version; they were easy enough for me to
understand.  The game is extremely easy to teach, even to young
children.  However, I do think that the basic rules might be better
for most people to learn, as players ignore the four numbers in the
corners of the card, and only use the top left number, which matches
the background and words on the card.  After one lap or game of the
Basic rules, I would move on; as the advanced game is so much better!

3.) Memory:  Memory, while not the determining factor of the game,
still plays an important role, as it really behooves players to
remember which sky cards are where.  If a sky card deals four damage
to a plane, you best remember not to land there!  And conversely, if a
card keeps your plane safe from attacks, and you have a trigger-happy
player on your tail; it's nice to know where the safe haven is.  The
fact that several of the cards can be placed in different locations
shakes things up a bit and helps keep the memory element a little off
balance.  If you don't like memory games, I still don't think this one
will bother you, as you can survive without taking undue time to
memorize which cards are where.  But it helps.

4.) Interaction:  What better interaction can you ask for than
shooting at each other in planes?  Getting shot down is not
game-breaking, as you only go back one base.  But it can cost a player
valuable time, and therefore is best avoided.  Shooting at each other
is a little more difficult than it seems, as a player has to get right
behind another player, and what if the sky card directly behind them
is a dangerous one?  The key to the game, I think, is knowing how to
use the looping cards correctly.  Knowing how to shoot someone down
who is coming after you is a good maneuver and fun to pull off.

5.) Luck:  At first, some of the players I gamed with complained about
how getting / landing on the right cards gave some players a big
break.  But since the game is three laps, and players know many of the
cards going around the second time, the luck does even out.  And even
a card that seems like it is bad has some kind of use.  Usually a card
has good numbers in two of the corners, and so using a "4" for my
action card means that I'm not using it for my fly card.  Players who
manage their hand well and save cards for when they are attacked by
others will do better.  Yes, there's luck, but it evens out over the
race.

6.) Fun Factor:  After several dryer Eurogames, I was pleased to play
a game brimming with theme once again.  Players were laughing and
making shooting noises as they shot at each other, and other special
sound effects were made to accompany the fun everyone was having.  It
was a race, which allowed players to take pot shots at each other.
How could that not be fun?

7.) Time and Players:  The game supports six players; but since the
game provides two extra customizable airplane cards, I suppose you
could go up to eight.  However, I played a game with seven players;
and while it worked okay, we had to shuffle the action deck a little
too much.  I think the game flows most smoothly with about five; but
it does accommodate up to eight, which is something nice to have.
Either way, the game time wasn't that long, lasting forty-five minutes
in our longest game, making this an easy game to pull out and play.

I enjoyed TaTaTa! quite a bit.  It's not a game I want to play all the
time, but it's one I'll play often, if only for it's diminutive size
and the fact that it accommodates large groups.  The cards are
hilarious and well illustrated, and game play is funny and fast.
Small elements of memory (knowing where the cards are), "take-that"
(shooting at other planes), and a race game combine to make a unique
experience.  Angelo packed a lot of fun in this small box!

Tom Vasel
"Real men play board games."

I picked up Elixir (Mayfair Games, 2000 - Los Rodriguez and Frederic
Leygonie).  I was at the game auction at Origins and was able to snag
the game for an inexpensive price, even though I hadn't heard of it
before.  I have pretty good confidence in Mayfair; however, so I
figured the game would be worth trying out.  When I opened the box and
saw that it was about fairies, I was a bit less excited.  The game
languished on my shelf for half a year, with me making no attempt to
pull it out.  Finally, I decided that unplayed games were A Bad Thing,
so I gathered a group of people together and tried it out.

	 I was pleasantly surprised when playing the game - it was a lot of
fun.  The game has a facade of a strategy game, but really Elixir is
simply a party game.  The game starts off a bit silly with the theme
of itsy bitsy fairies dashing off, gathering ingredients for the
players' spells.  But once the spells starting taking effect, the game
gets goofy quickly.  Perhaps the game might be too long for some
people - about an hour or so, with the level of sheer silliness that
occurs in it - but I heartily enjoyed the game.  If you're with a
group of animated, extroverted folk, then Elixir is an excellent
choice when looking for levity.

	 Four piles of spell cards (levels one through four) are shuffled and
placed face down on the table.  A pile of 112 "Find" cards is shuffled
and forms a large draw deck in the middle of the table.  After doing
"Am-Stram-Gram" (read the rules to find out) to determine who goes
first, the first player chooses a spell from any of the four piles.
Players continue to pick, in turn order, spell cards, until all
players have met or exceeded the total number of spell points (8-11,
determined by number of players) on all their spells. (For example, in
a three-player game I could have one Level 4 spell, two level 3
spells, and one level 1 spell for a total of 11 spell points.)  Five
"Find" cards are dealt to each player for their starting hand, and the
game is ready to begin with the first player.

	 On a player's turn, they draw the top card from the Find deck, and
then take as many actions as they can / want to.  The actions players
may take are:
- Cast one of their spells:  Each spell has a number of ingredients
shown on it, corresponding to the level of the spell.  There are four
of each of the sixteen different ingredients (which have names such as
"Lock of angel hair", "A jab in the side", and "Troll's nose".)  If a
player has the ingredients in the hand necessary to cast the spell,
they discard the ingredients and play the spell on the table.  The
spell then causes some sort of effect, listed on the card.  Level 4
and 3 spells have powerful effects, such as allowing a player to steal
a find card from an opponent of their choice each turn for the rest of
the game, or causing all players to give their finds to the player on
their left.  Level 2 spells are not quite as good, but are still
useful, such as "You may randomly take a find from each of your
opponents, and discard them immediately."  Level 1 spells, however,
add hilarity to the game.  Played on another player, they force that
player to do things such as hop around the table twice on one foot,
scratch their head every time they speak the rest of the game, declare
love for you, or other inane things.  Players who cannot / choose not
to / forget to do these things forfeit cards from their hands to the
players who catch them.
- Use a magical object:  Some Find cards are considered "magical
objects", which basically allow the player to do some sort of action,
like steal finds from an opponent, draw them from the deck, etc.
- Open a transaction:  There are three different transactions that can
be played on a player's turn: the Flea Market, the Market Day, and the
Auction.  All three of these have different rules but basically
consist of players exchanging find cards from their hand, just in
different ways.

Some magical items and spells can be played out of turn, as long as
the card states that the player can do it, and has the necessary
ingredients.  There are also several non-magical objects, that mostly
do nothing except waste space, although a few of them can affect
certain spells played.  As soon as one player gets rid of all the
spells in their hand, they are the winner!

Some comments on the game...

1.) Components:  The game is basically made up of the 178 cards
included in the Mayfair small-boxed-game box, so I'm glad that a lot
of attention was paid to them.  The cards are of good quality, and I
was especially enamored by Bernard Bittler's artwork.  There are quite
a few differences between the European artwork and Mayfair artwork -
mostly in the amount of clothing that the fairies wear (none in the
European). I've already seen debates about this on the internet, so
I'll just simply state that I'm pleased I have the Mayfair edition.
Each ingredient card, while having a humorous illustration on it, also
has an icon in the corner.  These icons are shown on the spell cards
and make matching the correct ingredients with the spells fairly
simple.  The back of the four different levels of spells each have a
different illustration, as well as a large number.  This allows other
players to easily determine how many spells another player has, and of
what type.  There is a lot of text on all the cards, but it doesn't
make the game as confusing as that sounds.  Every card is quite simple
to understand; and any discrepancies, if they show up, can easily be
decided by a majority of the players.  The only cards that might be
confusing are the three transaction types, and the rules clearly
explain each type.  Small game, but nice components.

2.) Rules:  The rule booklet is only eight pages long and is pretty
clear, since the game isn't really that difficult.  As I stated above,
a good section of the rules describes the transaction cards, the "Am
Scram" method of picking the first player, and a listing of the
ingredient cards.  With pictures included, the rulebook is very easy
to read - I enjoyed the way it was laid out.  The game was extremely
easy to teach - the only hiccup was the fact that a lot of magic items
referred to specific transaction cards, and until we actually
proceeded with those transactions, players weren't quite sure what the
magic items did.  After a few rounds, this was cleared up; and the
game was fairly easy to play.

3.) Level 1 Spells:  I can't imagine a game being played with no one
picking any level one spells, which is good, as they are some of the
funniest effects of the game.  In our last game, I had to say "for
your information...." with everything I said, which was annoying to
me, but funny to the others.  Having another player having to call me
"Master" every time she spoke, and another say, "well, I'll be a
monkey's uncle" every time they spoke only increased the humor.  I
won't deny that there are many people who would find this sort of
thing annoying at best, detestable at worst.  To those people I would
caution against playing this game, as they will most likely have to
act out some foolish charade for the amusement of others.  But when
you have a group of people who are willing to be silly for silliness'
sake, then these level 1 spells will make your day.

4.) Luck:  When you don't have the cards you need in your hand, and no
magic objects worth playing, then your turn can simply involve picking
up a card and passing.  This isn't the most fun thing in the world
when it happens several times in a row; but the transaction cards help
break this up, allowing most players to get at least some of the cards
they want.  Still, it's quite possible for someone to win the game
because they got the cards they needed, and no one else did.  Yes,
there a few tactical decisions in the game - knowing when to play the
correct card, what cards to give to other players, the order of
playing one's spells, etc.  But the game has a huge dose of humor and
luck, and those interested in playing should know this.

5.) Fun Factor and Length: The game is a blast to play for about
thirty minutes.  And if the game lasts only thirty minutes, that's a
good thing.  But occasionally the game goes a little longer than that
- and then things can drag out.  Even with groups full of levity,
sometimes too much can be too much.  Still, the game is a lot of fun
as players trade cards back and forth and play silly spells on one
another.

Elixir is on my shelf and will likely be brought out on occasions
where I want to play a game that makes everyone laugh but doesn't
require folks to think too hard or be creative, like a typical party
game.  While the game could be played (I think) as a serious trading
card game, I seriously doubt that it would be worth it.  Anyone taking
this game seriously would end up annoyed and irritated.  Taking the
game with a "dose of good humor" (one of the ingredients) is what is
necessary.  If you play the game expecting silliness, you'll be
satisfied.  Because that, my friend, is all the game is.  Fun,
worth-paying-for silliness, but absurdity nonetheless.

Tom Vasel
"Real men play board games."

Interviews by an Optimist # 29 - Mike Petty

Mike says this about himself...

I was born in Lapeer, Michigan in 1969.  There are plenty of things I
could talk about, but in terms of games, I can make it really simple.
I've always loved them.  I've remember the thrill of learning new
rules even at a young age.  I thoroughly enjoyed playing games and I
naturally made a few as well.  The only problem was that for most of
my life, I was the only person I knew who enjoyed games enough to make
time for them.  Consequently, I missed most of the good games that
came along through the 70's and 80's.  Stratego and Othello summed up
90% of my gaming experiences.  By the time I was in my '20's I rarely
gave games a thought, considering them something people grow out of.

In the early '90's, though, I discovered the abstract board game
Terrace.  It opened my eyes to new trends in games.  The simple rules
and unique twists on familiar concepts grabbed my attention and from
then on I've been hooked  like never before.  With the resources I
found on the Internet around that time, I was able to leap headlong
into the hobby.  Now, ten years later I look at my love of games from
three perspectives—gamer, retailer and designer.  I suspect you
requested an interview because of my experiences in those areas, so
I'll wrap this up by touching briefly on each.

As a gamer, I'm involved in a couple regular groups around the
mid-Michigan area.  I also head up the high school game club at the
school where I teach.  It's a passion of mine to introduce as many
people as possible to this hobby.  It's great seeing them discover
these games that I've enjoyed for years.

Eventually it was these efforts that led me to my work with Fair Play
Games, an online game store.  My friend Terry Carr runs the business
and I worked with him a lot in 2002 and 2003.  The perspective I
gained in those months was very valuable to my overall goals when it
comes to games.

And lastly, my love of games naturally led me to design many of my
own.  I create games simply because I get ideas, then I can't stand to
just do nothing with them.  Some are good, some are terrible, but it's
a goal of mine to see as many people as possible enjoying what I've
created.  In 2000 my friend Stephen Glenn and I encouraged each other
to put everything into our dreams of having our games published.  He's
gone on to have two of his games picked up by well-known publishers.
I can't say the same for myself, but I haven't given up yet!  More
importantly, though, my work with Stephen led to Protospiel.  That's
the game designer convention he started and that I head up now (with
the help of other good friends).  Through Protospiel I've learned the
joy of meeting and encouraging other game designers as they pursue
their dreams.

Tom:  I've heard a bit about Protospiel, why don't you explain some
more about it?

Mike:  Protospiel is the brainchild of Stephen Glenn.  He first
mentioned the idea to me in 2000.  He envisioned a gathering of game
designers where they'd get together just to play each other's
prototypes.  That pretty much sums the event up.

We held the first one in Charlottesville, Virginia in the summer of
2001.  For four days we talked game design and playtested games.  Only
five of us made up the core group of that first event.  Dominic
Crapuchettes and Stephen organized it that year.  Dominic has gone on
to start his own game company, North Star Games.  He's published his
games Cluzzle and Trivia Casino (due out this year).  Stephen designed
Balloon Cup and we'll see his latest game, a party/trivia game with a
big twist called You Must Be An Idiot, out from R&R Games this summer
as well.

In 2002 we moved the event to East Lansing, Michigan.  I helped
Stephen organize it that year, and we found the mid-Michigan area to
be very conducive to our goals.  First off, we met up with James Kyle,
the designer of HellRail, published by Mayfair Games.  He lives only
twenty minutes away from where we meet and he brought a wealth of
experience to the event.  I also knew of several designers I'd met in
the area who would be glad to come to join us.  That year we had such
a great turnout that we've held it in East Lansing ever since.

Now the event draws about twenty designers from Canada and the eastern
U.S.  We include workshops along with the playtesting, though the
playtesting is still the focus. The creativity and contacts that
result from the gathering are just phenomenal.  I imagine only game
designers are going to appreciate any further details of what goes on
there. Suffice it to say we always get the same comment.  Nothing
compares to the advice you can get when you playtest your games with
like-minded designers.

The results of Protospiel are becoming evident too in a growing number
of games that have been released over the last few years.  I already
mentioned Balloon Cup and Cluzzle, both of which were tested at
Protospiel.  Other titles that may be familiar to some of your readers
are Kory Heath's Why Did the Chicken...? and my own party game What's
It To Ya?.  Don Beyer joined us last year, and he's helping to
organize this year's event.  He is one of the co-designers of
Bootleggers, published by Eagle Games.  Mark Goadrich, a designer who
joined us last year, started a geeklist recently highlighting all the
games playtested at Protospiel or designed by Protospiel attendees. It
really speaks to the talent and variety that we see there each year.

Anyone interested in this year's event can find all necessary
information at the website:  www.protospiel.org.

Tom:  Amidst such an array of designers must have produced some good
lessons about designing board games.  What tips would you give budding
game designers?

Mike: This is a tough question to answer briefly, because there is a
wide range of people I meet who have an idea for a game that they'd
like to see published.  Ask any game publisher who accepts outside
submissions about the many letters and emails they receive, and you'll
understand what I mean.

The most general advice I can give would be to know the industry very
well.  Find out which games are similar to yours--it's very likely
there are several.  Study up so you can be very realistic about how
much work it's going to take to create a good game, and how little
money you'll likely see from it.  Most importantly, don't ever invest
a lot of money producing a game yourself until you've received a lot
of feedback from several people
outside of your circle of friends.

For those who do know the game industry well and who have spent a lot
of time developing a game, the most common advice I hear is to get to
know people in the industry.  While many companies will take a look at
your game through email or some other submission process, nothing
compares to playing your game with someone from the company who might
publish it.  William Niebling from Mayfair put it to me very simply:
"People do business with people."  Getting that face-to-face
opportunity without making a nuisance of yourself is often the hard
work on top of the hard work of creating the
game.

Tom:  Why did you decide to publish your own games, rather than send
them to another publisher?

Mike:  Oh, I've definitely sent my games to other publishers!  I've
been doing it for almost ten years, but most of that time I went about
it all wrong.  I made many of the mistakes I just referred
to--probably all but the mistake of blowing a fortune on
self-publishing.

To answer your question, though, I have to go back to a two-week
period in 2002.  I met James Kyle at Protospiel that summer.  James
led a session at the event where he outlined his model for getting
published by a major publisher.  His approach appealed to me
immediately.

His own game, HellRail, is the classic case.  James made 50 copies by
hand and sold them all at GenCon one year.  Encouraged, he churned out
500 handmade copies of the improved second edition.  All of this was
done on a shoe-string budget, relatively speaking.  His second edition
caught the attention of Games Magazine, where it claimed the "Best
Family Game" slot (no small feat for a game about hauling lost souls
around Hell!).  At about that same time he also signed a contract with
Mayfair who took notice of the game.

In short, I loved James' model because it rings true with what I want
to believe about games--that a strong game will speak for itself.  I
think we have all been duped at one time or another into picking up a
game because it was made to look better than it was.  I'm always
amazed at how games like that get published.  James' talk at
Protospiel encouraged me to take the next step and see if any of my
designs could attract attention on their own.

These events were only a week after my friend Terry Carr had acquired
the Fair Play Games online store.  Working closely with him as I was,
I knew I had a direct outlet for my games to reach the public.  So, a
month later I printed up 50 copies of my small word game Yaddy-Yadda.
A few other titles came after that, each one testing the waters in one
direction or another.  In terms of James' model, I'm currently between
the Games 100 and a contract with one of my designs.  While the
process is taking some time, much longer
than it did for James, I've been very pleased to see a game of mine
gather steam on its own accord.


Tom:  Which one of your games has been the most successful?

Mike: Success is measured on a small scale for my games at this point,
but there's no doubt What's It To Ya? is my game that has reached the
most people.  It received the most positive feedback of all of my
Black & White Games.  I might add that you started the ball rolling
with your review back in 2003.  The New World Games edition was a
small print run which sold out at the end of 2004.  Right now the game
is being considered by a larger publisher.

I might also mention Why Did the Chicken...? here.  While Kory Heath's
name is on the box, that game is a direct result of a joint effort by
both of us.  Essentially, we developed a creativity game system
together, and the boxed game Why Did the Chicken...? is Kory's effort.
  In that sense, perhaps my contribution to our creativity system would
be considered my most successful work.

Tom:  Can you tell us a little about your latest game - "Get Paul That
Promotion"?

Mike: Sure.  In fact, it is a close cousin to the games in the
creativity system I just mentioned.  In this game, everyone is a
"sloganeer" making up product names and slogans for great new
products.  The catch is everyone is trying to help this guy named Paul
to get a promotion by purposely turning out sub-standard work.  The
humor comes from the ridiculous product names and slogans that are
submitted as if they were good ideas.  Paul's not really a player in
the game, but through the scoring system players can determine whether
or not he gets his promotion at the end.  Usually two players lose
the game.  The player who consistently writes the worst product names
and slogans will lose by getting fired.  The player who consistently
writes the best ones will lose as well, being considered by his
colleagues as a suck-up who tried to further his career at the expense
of Paul.

If it's not clear from the description, Paul's Promotion, as we
usually call it, is a strange game.  First of all, it's a party game
with a theme.  To find any humor or even a motivation to play well,
you have to role play. I've debated this a lot with many game designer
friends who disagree with me, but I really believe any game that
requires players to take on a role like this to really enjoy the game
is likely to turn off most adults who don't consider themselves
gamers.  That, on top of the fact that all of our creativity games
frighten some players away--those who claim they can't come up with
good ideas--makes Paul's Promotion rather un-marketable by usual
standards.

While it's silly and even immature in a lot of ways, there are some
fascinating things I continue to enjoy about it.  I love the contrast
between the quiet while everyone is writing submissions and the
uproarious laughter when they're read.  I also find some interesting
philosophical implications in what constitutes a good response in the
game.  To get the full effect of the humor, a player essentially views
the submissions from the various perspectives of the characters
involved where they are seen as good, horrible or completely
hilarious.

Lastly, I love the game because it resulted from a day of gaming with
a group of my former students.  The character Paul in the game is
named after the guy who gave me the idea for the title.  Probably my
favorite group of people to game with right now are these guys who
come back from college in the winter and summer and visit my wife and
I for a day of gaming.  I'm still Mr. Petty to most of them, but it's
good to know them as friends after having them for years in the
classroom.

Tom:  Tell us a little about your stint at www.fairplaygames.com.
I've heard nothing but good things about them (having dealt with them
myself in the past).  What are they doing right?

Mike: I worked very closely with Terry for the first year and a half
after he took over Fair Play Games.  It was great getting a
perspective on the industry from the retailer side of things.

Terry and I have been friends since the 3rd grade.  We know each
other's strengths, and we always work very well together.  At first,
he handled the mechanics of running the business, and he did all the
programming for the site.  I was more of a gamer between the two of
us, so I handled things like keeping an eye out for new games.  I also
tried to establish a fun, personal presence at the site.  For example,
I handled the online contests and newsletter articles dealing with our
own gaming experiences.

The problem we continually faced was the store kept growing very
quickly.  Of course, to Terry this was not really a problem; it was
all he hoped for.  What I found, though, was the store was taking away
what I really liked about games.  There was no time for gaming when
orders were pouring in, and both of us were working full-time jobs to
support our families.  When I had a great idea for a promotion, for
example, there was no time for Terry to do the programming to
implement it.  We were completely caught up in the day-to-day business
of packing boxes and ordering games.  If I could have supported my
family with that job, it wouldn't have been the worst thing in the
world. I would have gladly done it for any number of years.  As it
was, though, I felt like it was bogging me down on my own goals--not
just with games but with life in general.  Terry and I eventually
worked out a lesser role for me, and his sister joined up with him to
run the business.  I still help out with the monthly newsletters,
interviews with game designers and articles for the site.  In the
early days when I worked with him, we didn't make enough money to pay
ourselves.  Now, just to pay me back for all those hours I put in, if
I want to pick up a game or two he still treats me quite well.  I help
out with reviews at the site, so I'm still his first choice when he
sends out a review copy.

When you ask what Terry's done right to have such a successful
business, I can tell you what I saw.  He first started by making sure
everything was in stock as much as possible. I was always hesitant to
order some game that had negative reviews, and that I didn't think
would sell well.  My thought was to get a copy only if someone ordered
it.  Terry would get two copies and let them sit on the shelf until
they were sold.  Then he'd order four.  His thinking was bigger than
mine, and we soon started getting comments that no one else had a
particular game in stock, so customers ordered from us.  As time went
on, Terry focused on three things:  a large selection, low prices and
great customer service. Almost any good comment I hear about Fair Play
relates to at least one of those three things.

Tom:  What are your thoughts on the online store vs. brick and mortar debate?

Mike: First off there's not much sense debating for or against the
online retailers.  As long as they can stay afloat, they're not going
away.  The question is how the rest of us-customers, retailers,
publishers and distributors-will deal with the changes they've brought
on.  My only hope is that everyone will take their decisions seriously
with a focus on the good of the industry.

A week after Terry and I took over Fair Play I was talking to an
industry leader, who politely but firmly opened my eyes to the
seriousness of this debate.  He made it clear he despised what we were
doing.  His argument was that gaming spreads primarily through the
game stores.  Online stores undercut the brick and mortar retailers,
and they offer no equivalent opportunity for people to notice gaming
or experience gaming.  He, in no uncertain terms, told me we were
pulling the whole industry down by breaking its very backbone.  The
best middle ground he could imagine was that an online retailer should
also run a brick and mortar store or, at the very least, the online
store had to set prices so that after shipping they were at retail
price.

The counterargument to this from those in online businesses was that
the online store must sell for less in order to make up for their lack
of services.  For example, when purchasing online, a customer can't
look at the box, feel the heft of it or have a chance to play the game
in a demo.  Also, the shipping time is less than satisfactory for
anyone who's used to dropping in a store and immediately getting the
game he wants.

I took all this to heart, and Terry and I did a few things to make
sure we were in balance. For example, we offered incentives to large
gaming groups who placed orders through Fair Play.  The idea was that
an active group could attract new gamers just as well as a group in
any brick and mortar store could.  Our contests, mini-reviews and
other features at the site and our newsletters were meant to offer
customers more than just a discount
outlet for games.

With creativity and effort, there are things an online retailer can do
to be sensitive to and help the industry as a whole.  In practice,
though, it appears that offering cheaper games has become the main
point of competition.  Discounts are now well beyond simply making up
for an online store's lack of service compared to that of a brick and
mortar store.  It appears the-latest-game-retailer.com can get away
with offering little more at their site than the just the lowest
price.  No matter what services the other online stores are offering
customers, if one is getting away with selling games at a lower price,
the others generally have to follow suit.

The result of this is that the perceived value of games has decreased.
  I've read emails from customers who act like it's a crime to sell a
game and make a little money.  But if simply offering deep discounts
is hurting the industry as a whole, is there really nothing the rest
of the industry can do?  Can't publishers make policies against
selling to retailers who sell at deep discounts?  Even if publishers
were blind to the fall of the game industry, though, couldn't
distributors take similar steps?  And customers play their part as
well.  Is it right for them to find their information elsewhere, then
head over to the
cheapest online retailer--whose bare-bones site offers nothing
more--to place the order?

I'm not an expert on these things by any means.  I would think,
though, that before the online stores are going to bring down the
industry, these relatively simple measures could be taken to rein in
the potentially destructive actions of the online retailers.  Since
those things aren't happening on a large scale, I'm wondering how
realistic the fears are.

In the real world, the brick and mortar stores that survive the
changing industry will be those that focus on what they can do best.
Offering great events that draw people in and demoing games for
curious new customers are things the online stores can't compete with.
  From there, each customer who enjoys those events and the benefits of
a local retail store will have to support those stores rather than
going online to make their purchases.

Ultimately, and this is pretty idealistic, but if we act responsibly
and keep an eye out for the industry as a whole, we should be able to
adjust with the inevitable changes brought on by changes in
technology.  The only question that remains is whether we--whatever
role we play--will focus more on money than the good of the industry.

Tom:  I hear that you run a high school board game club.  Can you tell
us a little more about that?

Mike: My return to gaming took place at the same time I started
teaching about ten years ago.  Even during that first year I would
have several students stay in my room during lunch, and we'd play
abstract games.  We played new games like Terrace and La-Trel, but we
also played a lot of chess.

About four years ago I started the official game club at the high
school.  On one hand it was a little frustrating when I started out.
The average student didn't get into the same games that I did, so I
had to be flexible.  Also, teenagers require patience when they're
learning and playing games!  Still, it's been a very rewarding
experience overall.  Many students who stay after for the club are not
involved in other activities in the school, so they really look
forward to our meetings. And as I mentioned earlier, the most
rewarding part is when they come to visit me after they graduate, and
we can game together as friends.

Tom:  How did you advertise the game club?

Mike: I've actually never made an announcement to spread the word.  I
had a core group of students who played games during lunch and
occasionally after school.  Once we started the club, they brought
their friends, and it grew naturally.  Also, I always have a chess set
and other games or puzzles around in my classroom to occupy students
who get some free time.  It's pretty easy to spot the ones who may be
interested in gaming, so I take the opportunity to tell them about the
club.

Tom:  What games were the most popular?

Favorite games have changed over the years, but the constant factor is
they must have excitement to catch on.  Strategic brain burners just
don't get much attention.  Generally there must be combat in the game.
  Risk 2210 was a big hit.  There's almost always a group of guys
playing Magic.  Probably the most popular game year after year has
been Werewolf.  For three years it was the game we closed with every
time.  I usually acted as moderator, since, being the only teacher
there, I didn't stand a chance of survival!

We have enjoyed some party games over the years as well.  Balderdash
was a hit.  My various experiments with the creativity system have
been highly requested too.  In fact, the students have helped me a lot
with play testing a number of my designs.  While they're not the best
at communicating exactly what's not working for them in a game, it's
pretty easy to read when they're not enjoying something.

All things considered, the game club has been a very positive
experience for me and for the students.  I'm sure it would be a big
step for me to start a high school game club if I wasn't already
involved in the school.  Still, I encourage anyone who might be even
remotely interested to look into the possibility.

Tom:  Did you ever allow the kids to "check out" games, like a book
from the library?

Mike: Oh, I'm pretty easy going when it comes to loaning out my games.
  This is particularly true when it comes to students.  One of the
things I've always enjoyed about gaming is how excited other people
are as they discover all these games they've never heard of.
Consequently, I have a hard time saying no to a kid who asks to borrow
a game to show it to his family or other friends.  I usually just
remind them the games don't come cheaply, and I ask them to please
take care of it.  Over all the years of loaning out games I can only
remember one lost set of rules and one damaged box.  If that's all
that happens now and then, I'll gladly loan a game for their enjoyment
rather than keep it sitting on my shelf over the weekend.

Tom:  How big a part is games in your life?  As a designer, are much
of your waking hours spent gaming/writing about gaming/thinking about
gaming?

Mike: There's no doubt I greatly enjoy games.  I take them
seriously--or at least I take the benefits of gaming seriously.  Time
with friends and family, entertaining others with my designs or games
from my collection, working to promote the hobby so others can find
the joy of games--these things are important to me.  If games were an
end in themselves, I'm spending way too much time on them.  I hope,
though, that through games I can accomplish and experience some good
things.

How much time do I spend?  Well, in our home, games are the primary
form of entertainment.  I never watch television.  Often from 8:00 to
9:00 at night my wife and I will play a game together.  It may be my
own design I'm testing in early stages, chess or some other game off
the shelf.  My wife, by the way, enjoys games almost as much as I do,
and for that I'm very grateful.  Short trips to cons are dates we can
both enjoy.  This means I can spend more time on my hobby, because
many times it's something we do
together.

We usually have friends over to our house for gaming at least every
two weeks.  Those sessions can go for about six to eight hours.  The
game club takes a couple hours each week as well.  I'm also involved
in two other game groups that meet about once a month.

When I'm not playing games, I work on my own designs.  On a daily
basis I don't work on them for extended periods of time unless I'm
finishing one up as a Black & White edition, or I'm polishing a
prototype in late stages of development.  Most of the time it's thirty
minutes here or there writing up rules or making graphics for a
prototype.  Only recently I've been able to get some playtest sessions
planned every couple weeks.  Having my latest big thing ready for
those takes a few hours on the weekends.  The playtest
sessions usually take several hours, since I not only test my games,
but we also play games from all designers present.

As for my online work writing interviews, articles and newsletters for
Fair Play, those things take awhile for me.  I'm not terribly fast
when it comes to writing.  You've surpassed the total number of
interviews I've done for Fair Play over two year's time in only three
months!  While my time spent writing for newsletters and the site
doesn't compare to what I used to spend, there are times where I'm
holed up in my room for a few hours on the weekends.

Lastly, being a teacher I spend as much time as possible in the summer
with things related to gaming.  It's usually centered around
Protospiel.  As it approaches, I put a lot of work into my prototypes
and any sessions or materials I'm responsible for there.  Usually the
weeks afterward are spent sifting through all the great ideas that
result from the event.

Tom:  It's sounds like Protospiel is a big step in the right direction
for a designer.  What other steps should prospective designers take?

Mike: Well, maybe a better way to put it would be that the types of
things that happen at Protospiel are the important first steps a
designer should take. Protospiel gives everyone an opportunity to
connect with other designers and to take a very critical look at their
games through playtesting.

The problems with Protospiel are that it only happens once a year, and
it's not geographically convenient for everyone.  What I suggest is
that designers look for the chance to hold gatherings similar to
Protospiel more frequently in their own areas.  I'm sure mid-Michigan
is not unique in the fact that several game designers and aspiring
designers have come out of the woodwork over the last few years.  We,
just like other Protospiel attendees from the Chicago area and Canada,
have started regular gatherings just to get together and playtest our
games.  Just like writers would join a writers group, it's vital
designers have a playtest group.  It's not something that will happen
on its own.  Good playtesting is a lot like work, but no amount of
fancy prototypes or rules that sound great on paper will make up for
it.

I should add that, while we'd love to see new faces at Protospiel, if
those dates aren't convenient, designers may want to look into Stephen
Glenn's PowWow.  It's held in Virginia and is very similar to what we
do at Protospiel.

Tom:  What is the max size for an event like Protospiel?  It seems to
me like they work best as smaller events...

Mike:  The overall size of these events isn't really a big deal.  We
always break up into smaller groups as required by the games.  More
designers just mean more games going at the same time.  Now, to
clarify on how we organize things, Protospiel itself is a little
different than the other play test sessions we plan during the year.
We ask that everyone who comes to Protospiel be a game designer.  By
that, we mean someone who has worked their way through the game design
process to some degree.  This keeps the size down somewhat, but that's
not why we have that requirement.  We've never discussed limiting the
attendance other than for considerations of the space we rent.  At its
peak, we usually have four or five games being tested at one time.
That's about 16-20 designers.  More may come to the event over the
three days, but they're not all there at the same time.

The other gatherings we plan here in Michigan (which are the only
sessions I can comment on) have been more loosely organized.  I
usually suggest designers try to bring along one or two friends who
are just there to playtest.  This way we can get a good sized group
and still have hopes of getting to play at least one game from each
designer.  If you figure in time to teach the rules to a game and the
all-important wrap-up after the game, even a 45-75 playing time can
take over two hours.  It seems there's never enough time to playtest
as much as we'd like!

Tom:  Do you have any games you are working on now that you can tell us about?

Mike: I'd love to believe everyone is waiting to hear about the latest
games by Mike Petty!  I'll be realistic, though, and try to phrase
this in a way that may interest others who may be toying with game
design even if they've never played my games or cared to.

To do this and still answer the question, I have to share a quote I
read from Jordan Weisman.  He is the brains behind the very successful
Clix games by WizKids.  He said, "The best games introduce a new
interaction model between the product and the players." I don't know
if that sounds simplistic or not, but taken in context this quote has
had a huge impact on my game design goals.  He's not talking about
creating good, fun games that simply repackage tried and true
mechanics.  He's talking about games like D&D and Magic that affect
the entire industry.  It's difficult to try to come up with something
so new, and I don't presume to be close to anything that big.  Still,
my current main project is a fairly large strategy game that started
with what I believe is a new interaction model.

Continuing along these lines, I have to refer to my work with the
creativity system again. My initial ideas that led to that system were
inspired by Weisman's quote.  I wanted to see a game that didn't turn
things into numbers.  Sometimes I get so tired of reading rules about
the highest total on the cards, the most cubes in a region, and so on.
  All of the creativity games we play are such a refreshing change in
that regard.  I'm continually coming up with new games that fit in
that system.  My current favorite is called Abe & Einstein.  It's a
game where players speculate on what might happen during a chance
meeting of two people, living, dead or possibly fictitious.

I've also been exploring the possibilities of games based on licensed
products.  I created a light card game based on a popular comic strip
recently.  While I can't say I'm close to seeing the game published
right now, I have been in contact with the distributor of the strip,
and there's definitely an interest in the game.  I don't have the
funds to pursue it
myself, though, so I'm in the process of contacting publishers who I
think may do a game such as this.

Tom:  What advice would you have for aspiring game designers?

Mike:  I encourage would-be designers that I meet to clarify their
goals and do whatever it takes to determine if the goals are
realistic.

I have one friend who just wants to make games for his family to enjoy
when they get together for holidays.  I think that's a great goal, and
I encourage him to pursue those ideas.

Another of my friends, Don Beyer, came to me shortly after we met, and
he told me he had an idea for a game.  I told him it sounded
interesting and he should follow through with it.  Certainly not on my
encouragement alone, Don teamed up with two of his friends, and he
aimed sky-high.  They worked hard with a clear vision of what they
wanted to accomplish with their games.  Within a year they had turned
that idea into Bootleggers which is now published by Eagle Games.

Contrast these cases with someone who doesn't have a clear goal.  I
know a lot of designers, myself included, who have spent years toying
around with several game ideas that all end up somewhere from 25% to
75% complete.  That shows a lack of focus.  Get a clear goal, go for
it and see if you've got what it takes.  Maybe your dreams will come
true.  Maybe you'll find out you don't have it and you'll never make
another game.  Maybe you'll just re-focus and get a more realistic
goal.  The thing is, you'll get to the point a lot quicker and what
you learn will be worth the effort either way.

Tom:  Let's say that there is someone who can't make it to Protospiel,
for whatever reasons, and doesn't have many connections in the
industry.  How can they go about promoting their game?

Mike: It's simply a matter of getting the game in the hands of the
right people, though actually doing that may be far from simple.
Before I elaborate, let's state the obvious: It's all a waste of time
if the game isn't strong.  I keep stressing this because, from my
experience, the vast majority of people trying to break in are not
aware of how their game stands in comparison to the wealth of choices
available to potential buyers.

Assuming someone has a strong game, it really boils down to three
resources: money, personal contacts and time.  It will likely take a
combination of at least two of the three.

Some people are blessed with enough cash of their own to produce and
promote their game successfully.  Others seek out investors.  Look at
what Venatic accomplished with Duel of Ages.  I've also watched my
friend Dominic Crapuchettes work his way up through this process with
North Star Games and his first game Cluzzle.  Essentially, enough
money will allow a designer to accomplish what an established
publisher would in terms of quality and promotion.

Perhaps the best way to go is to make personal contacts within the
industry. As I already stated earlier, this is the advice I usually
hear.  For a person who has little contact at the present time, it's
important to go to cons and get to know the people behind the scenes.
This isn't always an easy thing to do; and if it's done improperly, it
can work against the individual.  It's probably not best to introduce
yourself and, in the same breath, tell them about your great game.  I
know my friends Kory Heath, Stephen Glenn, Don Beyer and James Kyle
can all tell about how their connections led to the publication of
their games, but in each case, relationships came before talk of
contracts.

And that leads us back to the third resource--time.  Any designer can
almost immediately answer the question of whether he has the cash or
contacts to get his game in the hands of the right people.  If the
answer is no, then it's going to take time.  It may take many years.
I've already talked about James Kyle's model for breaking into the
industry, but that's really what we're talking about here.  The money
and/or personal contacts will come if
the game is strong enough, but patience will be the key.

If a designer like you describe is looking for a step-by-step process,
here's what I've seen work.  Make as many inexpensive copies of the
game as you can.  Get a website up and link up to the Boardgame Geek.
Both the edition of the game and the website have to be of a good
enough quality in relation to the selling price to appeal to the
target audience. Get review copies in the hands of the right people
(and I should add, Tom, that I think your name is one of those at the
top of that list!).  Sell as many copies as you can produce through
conventions and online retailers.  When there are more games released
in a year than there are days, it takes a lot of work to continually
put your game in the face of the public.  If it's got what it takes,
though, there comes a point where it gains its own attention.

And lastly, for those who can't make it to Protospiel, be sure to
check out the Resources page at the Protospiel site
(www.protospiel.org).  James Kyle has done an excellent job of listing
resources that aspiring designers will find useful.  There is a list
of sites there created by designers who have attended Protospiel.
Most of these sites and the work of the designers are excellent
examples of people working through this process I just described.

Tom:  Mike, I appreciate the time you've taken for this interview. Any
final words for our readers?

Mike: First of all, thanks for the chance to highlight Protospiel and
my games.  I always enjoy your reviews and interviews, and it was a
pleasure taking part in this one.

Any final words?  Well, I hope the designers will keep dreaming, and
the gamers will keep playing.  But then again, could we stop even if
we wanted to?


Tom Vasel
"Real men play board games."
April 2005

Two things came to mind when I first opened up the box of Amazonas
(Mayfair Games, 2005 - Stefan Dorra).  One was how absolutely
beautiful the board looked, standing out even in a day where board
games are starting to look better and better.  The other was the
reminder in my head not to make the same mistake Greg Schloesser made
with the coins.  I don't know how many times I've sat down to type up
a review and noticed some minor or critical mistake I've made when
playing the game, so I was thankful that Greg had caught the slightly
confusing rule for me.

	 Amazonas is not a deep game, being more of a middle-weight game along
the lines of Ticket to Ride.  The choices are simple; but the strategy
is good, and each game turns out differently (so far as I've seen.)  I
wouldn't want to play the game every week, but I could easily play it
several times a year and find that it's an excellent stepping stone to
use on the path of introducing new players to the wonderful world of
strategic board games.  It's simple enough that everyone in the family
can play but deep enough that it that adults will be satisfied.  I
wouldn't be surprised if it was nominated for the Spiel des Jahres in
2005, although I would be surprised if it won.

	 The game board, with thirty villages, all connected to each other, is
placed on the table.  Each village has one specimen type (blue fish,
purple flower, yellow butterfly, red parrot, or green lizard)
associated with it, and has one to three building sites on it - each
with two to five gold pieces printed on them. Each player receives a
set of seven "income" cards, three gold coins, and twelve huts of one
color.  A pile of gold and silver coins is placed near the board, as
well as a shuffled face-down deck of event cards.  Each player is
given a "Secret Mission" card, which has four of the villages marked
on it.  Four bonus tokens are placed near the board, as well as piles
of each of the five specimen tokens, and four "native" tokens.
Starting with the youngest player, each player claims a building spot
in a village of their choice, placing one of their huts on the spot,
and paying the appropriate amount to the bank.  The game is then ready
to begin.

	 On each of the eighteen turns of the game, an event card is turned
over, which affects that turn.  Players then each choose an income
card from their hand and play them face down, then simultaneously
reveal them.  Each of the income cards has an icon on it (one of the
five specimens, a native, or a "wild" icon).  Each income card also
has a number from "0" to "6".  Players will receive income that equals
the sum of the number on the card plus one for each token they have
that matches the icon on the card (for the "wild" icon - the token
type they have the most of.)  Players declare how much income they
will get and turn order cards are handed out to the players, with the
player getting the highest income going first.  Ties are broken by a
small number at the top of the income cards.  Each player then takes
their turn in this turn order.

	 On a turn, a player takes silver coins (three silver coins = one gold
coin) equal to the income they get that turn.  They then can build as
many huts as they want, provided they
- have enough gold coins to build.  Each hut in a village is
progressively more expensive than the last.
- Each hut they build must be connected to one they already own, by
either a river or land route.
Whenever a player builds a hut in a village (even the one at the
beginning of the game), they take a token of that type and place it in
front of them.  When a player gets one token of each specimen type,
they may take the top bonus tile and place it in front of them. (Bonus
tiles are worth "5", "4", "3", and "2" points).  After a player takes
their turn, they cannot use their income card again until they have
used all seven of them, at which point they take all their income
cards back into their hand.

	 Each event card affects the game differently, causing players to
adjust their strategies.  If a player plays the income card with the
"6" on it, they can ignore the bad effects of any of these cards.
- A jaguar event shuts down all land paths for that turn.
- A crocodile event shuts down all river routes for that turn.
- A bonus event gives one extra silver coin to all players that have a
token that matches the one shown on that card.
- When a native event card is drawn, one of the four native tokens is
placed on it.  During this turn, a player can forfeit their income to
take the native, which they must immediately assign to one of the five
specimen types (it essentially becomes a token of that type.)  Once
the native token is taken, other players are out of luck.
- A theft event causes each player to lose silver coins equal to the
number of tokens in the single category they have the most of.
- A forest fire event cuts all income received that turn in half.

After the eighteenth event card is turned over, and all players have
received their turns, the game ends.  Each player then totals their
final score.  If players have at least three specimen tokens
(including natives) of a specific type, they get one point for each
token; otherwise tokens score no points.  To this total, players add
the number on their bonus chip (if they have one), and then subtract
three points if they don't have a hut in the four villages on their
secret mission card.  The player with the highest total is the winner,
with ties going to the player with the most research tokens!

Some comments on the game...

1.) Components:  As I said, the game components are quite beautiful,
starting with the picturesque board.  The river and jungle paths wind
all over the board, creating a really nice visual effect.  I think
that Amazonas is a good example of how an abstract game can really be
changed.  I'm sure that mathematically, all the villages could have
been lined up in nice, straight lines; but because of the way the
board is set up, wavy lines go all over the board, creating a very
pleasant effect.  Each specimen tile (which are of good quality) is of
a different color; and all the colors are very bright, helping cement
the theme of a tropical rainforest.  The cards and artwork are
well-done, and everything fits very neatly in a nice plastic insert in
a colorful, large square box.

2.) Coins:  I thought I'd briefly mention the coins that I've seen a
few people complain about on the internet.  The game rules have
players take income in silver coins and pay out in gold coins.  While
this works well from a mechanical viewpoint, it's just not intuitive.
Fortunately, I didn't miss the fact that payouts were in gold coins
(not silver - an easy mistake to make), but even though I stressed the
point clearly, I still had players ask for clarification several times
throughout the game.  This is a minor thing, but it helps if you know
about it...

3.) Rules:  The rules were shorter than I thought and were frankly
quite simple.  The four pages of the color rulebook were well laid
out, and included many illustrations and examples.  The game (even
with the little coin snafu) is very easy - and people quickly picked
up on how to play. One might want to show the event cards to players
before a new game, as they can be a surprise to those not prepared;
but other than that, game play is fairly simple to pick up.

4.) Secret Missions:  There are eight different mission cards, and
most of them go to completely different cities, not affecting each
other at all.  Still, it's possible to box someone out of getting a
city.  Don't let this discourage you if you don't like nasty games,
it's usually pretty difficult to see if someone is heading towards a
specific city or not.  Boxing someone out of a city is usually
accidental; so while some annoyance results, it's usually not
intentional.  I suppose someone could memorize all eight secret
mission cards, and thus determine what card everyone holds; but this
person would not be fun to game with period.  Either way, while not
insignificant, the loss of three points for not connecting all cities
isn't always devastating; I've seen people win regardless.

5.) Income cards:  I'm a sucker for simultaneous selection, so I was
glad to see that in this game, although it's not as intense in other
games.  The only time where I felt turn order really mattered was when
a Natives event card was revealed.  Those native tokens are extremely
useful and really help to push a player's score up.  But are they
worth sacrificing a lot of income for?  Small decisions like this make
the game fun.  Since the "6" card cancels a bad effect, and this can
only happen three times a game, knowing when to play this card is
important also.  Is the forest fire bad, or is it worth it to be able
to ignore the Crocodile card?

6.) Fun Factor:  The game, while having an interesting theme, really
doesn't have too many thematic elements to it - other than the
beautiful pictures.  I really didn't feel like a forest fire occurred,
or that I was traveling through the Amazon.  But I didn't care, it was
a fun game regardless.  The fact that the game took about forty-five
minutes, yet provided a fun gaming experience, makes this game worth
playing.  Everyone was absorbed in connecting their own cities, making
the game a bit of a solitaire experience, punctuated by a bit of
interaction (going first and taking the native, blocking someone
else.)  Because the cities are fairly expensive, for many turns
players simply collect their income and do nothing.  Normally this
would be annoying, but it's assuaged by the short playing time,
therefore causing little downtime.

I think Amazonas is a keeper.  The game looks good and is a good
"after the gateway" game.  It's very simple to teach, and there are
different strategies and tactics in the game.  Will players mainly
concentrate on connecting their cities, try to be the first to get a
bonus chip, or try to get as many tokens of one or two types that they
can?  These aren't deep thoughts, and I doubt we'll see too many
strategy articles about Amazonas on the internet.  But that doesn't
mean the game isn't fun, and worth playing.  It's not quite a filler
game; but when you have less than an hour and want a game that
provides some return on your time investment, Amazonas is a good
choice.

Tom Vasel
"Real men play board games."

Meatbot Massacre is a recently published tactical board game by two
designers who are probably more well-known among role-playing gamers
than among boardgame fans: Greg Stolze and Daniel Stolis.

The game is mech-ish, with the players building and controlling
customizable Meatbots, bio-engineered war machines that enter
gladiatorial combat against each other to entertain the masses of
the far future. After a simple process of building one's own
personal Meatbot, the bots are thrown against each other in an arena
with only the strongest coming out alive.

The Meatbots

Each Meatbot is rated in 4 categories, Massacre, Move, Defend, and
Attack. Here's what each means:

Massacre: A Meatbot's Massacre score indicates the number of actions
it can take in a turn (more on actions later). Unlike the other
three scores, which always start at the same base rating, a
Meatbot's Massacre score can vary depending on the set-up the
players involved agree on.

Move: Indicates the Meatbot's base move score. The default Move
rating is 2.

Defend: Indicates the Meatbot's base defend score. The default
Defend rating is 2.

Attack: Indicates the maximum number of attacks a Meatbot can make
in a turn. Obviously, it only comes into play when a meatbot's
Massacre score is greater than its Attack value. The default Attack
rating is 4.

Each Meatbot has two other traits, Meats and Stomachs. The former
serves as hit points, with a default starting score of 20, while the
latter indicates the room available for tricking out the Meatbot
with a variety of digestible goodies.

The Actions

There are four actions available to a Meatbot, along with a specific
die for each action: Move (d4), Defend (d6), Attack (d10), and
Grandstand (d12). Here's how each action plays out in detail:

Move: Player rolls d4 and adds the result to his base score for the
turn. If multiple d4's are rolled, the results are cumulative.

Defend: Player rolls d6 and adds result the result to his base
Defend for the turn. If multiple d6's are rolled, then the player
only applies the highest number rolled to his Defend score.

Attack: Player rolls d10 and tries to beat the Defend score of any
of his competitors. Remember, the number of attacks is limited by
the Meatbot's Attack score.

Grandstand: Grandstanding is a uber-attack that is specific to each
weapon in the game. It causes a lot of damage, trumps any defense
rating, but is hard to pull off as the player needs to roll a 12 on
d12. It's risky, but worth it if successful.

The Rounds

The game progresses through a series of rounds. On each round, the
players decide on the actions of their Meatbots and grab the
appropriate dice. For example, perhaps I'm feeling lucky, so I roll
2 d10's (2 attacks) and a d12 (a grandstand) in hopes of wiping out
my opponent in one fell swoop. Or maybe my Meatbot is close to death
and needs to protect itself, so I role 2 d6's (2 defends) and a d4
(move). The dice are chosen secretly, and then rolled all at once
and simultaneously by all players. Actions are resolved in the
following order:

Defend: Any Meatbots that defended get a bonus to their Defend score
(result of d6, or highest number on d6 if multiples are rolled).
Even if they choose not to roll any Defend dice, their Meatbot
defends with its default rating.

Attack: With all Meatbots armored up, look at all the d10's in play,
counting down from 10. As mentioned before, a hit is successful if
you beat or equal another Meatbot's Defend score. The player is free
to choose any target on the board (within proper range, of course),
as there is no declaration of intentions to muss things up. If a hit
is successful, then the Meatbot takes an amount of damage based on
the weapon used. If a Meatbot goes down to 0 Meats, its toast.
Grandstands also go off at this time.

Move: Once all Attacks are completed, all Meatbots have a chance to
move, with the Meatbot with the lowest Move score going first. And
remember, d4's add to the Move score and are cumulative.

Once all actions are resolved, the players pick up their dice and
the next round begins.

Customizing

The game comes with 17 power-ups, from rockets to armor adds to hand-
to-hand weaponry. In the game parlance, these power-ups are called
Devourables, because these options are literally devoured and
internalized into the Meatbots. This also means that the Meatbots
are able to throw them up during the course of the death match to
make room for any new ones. You see, once a Meatbot is dead, its
gear is there for any other Meatbot that wants to take the time to
devour it. So during the course of the game, it's possible for the
Meatbots on the arena floor to change their gear as their
competitors become smears on the arena floor.

The game concludes with a short section on customizing Meatbots and
running tournaments of sort. The rules for building your own Meatbot
are nice and simple. The method I prefer involves agreeing on a
number and letting each player divide that number between its
Meatbot's Massacre and Stomach scores. This works quite well, as it
allows for players to create their own light, nimble Meatbots with a
minimum of gear but with a plethora of tactical options, or they can
go for a heavy-armored juggernaught of doom that is not very mobile.

The PDF

The game can be downloaded for free in three different parts. There
is a 10 page, full-color ruleset, and also a trimmed down 7 page
version that omits the graphics and fluff. The third PDF is a
collection of accessories for the game, including a printable hex
map, fold-up paper minis, and Meatbot "character" sheets. Both of
the rules sets are well-done, easy to read, and well organized.

The Review

I've never been a big fan of hex-based miniature combat games, but I
found Meatbot Massacre to be light enough - and silly enough - to be
good fun. My friend and I were able to jump into the game quite
quickly, and then when a third showed up, it took almost no time to
get him playing as well.

The dice mechanics are quite clever and seemed to work well during
the course of our games. It was very easy to roll dice and quickly
compare dice pools to see where everyone stood.

Our only complaint was the small number of Devourables offered in
the rule book. Yes, there are 17, but they don't go very far beyond
covering the usual sorts of buffs and weapons you might expect in
such a game. As we played, we were constantly talking about new
ideas for kick-ass weaponry we wished we had on board. Of course, I
have no doubt that fans will start creating their own power-ups, so
this shortage is probably just a temporary issue.

I can recommend Meatbot Massacre highly as a fun diversion from your
more serious war games or as something to kill the time while
waiting for others to show up. And heck, it's free, so it doesn't
cost anything to try it at least once.

The game can be downloaded for free at:
http://www.danielsolis.com/meatbot/

Interviews by an Optimist # 28 - Kevin Wilson


After graduating from UC Berkeley with a degree in Artificial
Intelligence, Kevin went to work for Alderac Entertainment Group for
several years designing RPGs (including 7th Sea and Spycraft). After
Spycraft, they parted ways, and he wound up with Fantasy Flight Games,
again designing RPG materials. After a while with them, Kevin got
interested in board games and started intensively studying them. After
pitching Magdar successfully, he made the move over to the board game
department, where he's since designed Arena Maximus, Mutiny!,
Warcraft: the Board Game and an expansion to it, and most recently,
Doom: the Board Game.

Tom:  Kevin, as I look over the five games (and one expansion) that
you've designed, it seems obvious that theme is very important to you.
  When designing a game, do you start with the theme and try to match
the mechanics - or what?

Kevin: Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Magdar, for example, was designed
from the basic mechanic of having a disintegrating board. Warcraft and
Doom, on the other hand, as licensed products, were necessarily
theme-first. I prefer working from a theme, but if I get a good idea
for a mechanic, then I'll build a theme around it.

For me, the theme of a board game is sort of like its sales pitch.
When I tell you I've made a game based on Doom, for instance, you
think of a marine running through corridors and shooting monsters. If
the theme isn't delivered, the audience is going to get upset, since
they've been sold on a game that isn't actually in the box.

Mechanics, on the other hand, are the designer's interpretation of the
theme. The designer's style comes through in the same way that an
artist's style colors his paintings. Think of all the still life
paintings of fruit you've seen, and just how different these paintings
can be from one another. Now think of all the board games you've seen
about, say, the colonization of the Mediterranean or Europe.

So to me, a great game is a marriage of a theme that excites me and a
set of mechanics that I'm proud of. Naturally, my definition of these
changes over time, as my tastes evolve and I acquire skill and
experience; but there's some key element in all of my games that I
love, or I would never have designed them.

Tom:  Kevin, do you spend a majority of your time designing at Fantasy
Flight, or do you have other duties there also?

Kevin: Actually, design work is only maybe 50% of my job. The biggest
unseen part of my job is probably the component development I do.
Working with Darrell Hardy, I try to plan out the most attractive
physical package for each game and still bring it in under budget.
That's probably the part of my job where I've seen the most
improvement - just compare the games I was putting together even a
year ago to Doom, and I think you'll agree.

Other than that, I work up budgets, try to answer rules questions when
I can, and review games that have been submitted to us for
publication. I also have to make prototypes as necessary. Worse yet,
I've had to make entire mockups of games to send to store
buyers/licensors in the past. The 3 handcrafted copies of Warcraft we
put together just about did me in, and is a good reminder of why
nobody else in the office gets to touch my left-handed scissors. If
something happens to them, I'm practically crippled. So, a lot of my
job is pretty mundane, but that's okay, since it makes the cool stuff
stand out more.

Tom:  People I've gamed with have commented lately on how much better
Fantasy Flight components are in your most recent games - some of them
absolutely astounding.  What things differently happened over the last
year that precipitated these changes?

Kevin: A couple of things, really. First was our continuing
dissatisfaction with the quality of the components in the earlier
batches of Silver line games. They weren't bad, but we felt we could
do better. Second was increasing competition in the board game
marketplace, particularly from such production wizards as Days of
Wonder. We knew we wanted to improve our components to the point where
other game companies were trying to keep up with us; we just had to
figure out how. Darrell Hardy became a full-time production manager
about this time, and he tracked us down a couple of manufacturers who
could make anything we could describe to them; and since then, we've
been making big strides in component quality with every new game. I
think that everyone will be floored at some of the stuff we've got
coming this year.

Tom:  Can you discuss in a bit of detail what exactly goes into the
process of a new board game at FFG?

Kevin: Well, that depends if it's an in-house design or a freelance
design.  Freelance designs are simpler, since the guts of the game are
already in place. We test them for game play and balance, make any
adjustments we feel are necessary, and then start formalizing the
rules. Graphics starts work on the layout of the components, while I
or another developer writes up the rules and lays them out. Then, once
that's all done, it goes through a rigorous editing process before
being sent off to the printer. Granted, each step of that process
takes a lot more time than it sounds like, but that's the gist of it.

In-house designs are the same, except that they have the added step of
design at the front end, and much more playtesting. They're a lot more
work, but sometimes it's the fastest way to get a game done, such as
when we're working with a licensor.

Tom:  What's the most difficult aspect of designing games, in your opinion?

Kevin: Making them feel new and original. There's nothing worse than
dredging up an innovative mechanic out of the depths of your skull and
having the first person you show it to yawn and say, "Oh, THAT old
chestnut? That was used in 12 games back in '01, and 3 of them even
used the same theme as you."

<moving into how I try to improve my designs now...topic drift in 3...2...1...>

Obviously, I've tried to familiarize myself with as many games as I
can to avoid this. At the moment my collection is up to 150 games,
including all the Spiel des Jahres and Deutcher SpielePreis winners.
I've studied these games to try and learn what works and what doesn't
work in each of them; and when a rules set is particularly
well-written, I try to figure out why.

I also like to talk with my friend and fellow game designer Eric Lang
about game design whenever he's up from Canada (yes, up, don't ask).
We've been discussing the topic for a while now, and some interesting
vocabulary has evolved out of it. Here are a few examples:

"Hurrah! moment" - That moment when all the random factors come
together for a player, and he pulls out a stunning victory against all
the odds, usually leading to a big cheer from the group.

"Little Jackpot" and "Big Jackpot" - A little jackpot is a small
reward paid out in the middle of a game, while a big jackpot is a
large reward paid out at the end of a game. I've been finding that the
best games use both of these. Ticket to Ride is a good example. You
receive little jackpots as you lay out trains during the game, and at
the end you receive a big jackpot when you cash in your tickets (well,
hopefully).

"Game Ritual" - This one is totally Eric's invention. He uses it to
refer to the actions that players repeat over and over again through
the course of the game. For Doom, the game ritual for the marines is
to discuss their plans with each other, move their marines, and roll
the dice. This is the thing those players do over and over. As
designers, we always try to make sure that the game ritual is fun and
entertaining, because that's a large part of what players are going to
judge the game on.

Tom:  Can you tell us any information on upcoming projects from Fantasy Flight?

Kevin: We've got Arkham Horror coming out in a few months. After that,
we've got Descent: Journeys in the Dark, which is a big
dungeon-crawling fantasy game building off of the system from Doom.
Descent is probably the project I'm on this year that has me the most
excited, since my roots are in fantasy RPG design. We also will be
releasing reprints of several games, including Fury of Dracula,
Through the Desert, and Warrior Knight. Finally, the big license for
the moment is the World of Warcraft board game.

Tom:  Can you give us any details on Arkham Horror?

Kevin: Sure, I know people are chomping at the bit for details on that
one; and hey, it's been a long time coming, so I can't blame them. At
its core, the new Arkham Horror is much the same as the original.
Investigators in the city of Arkham journey around the city, visiting
locations and having horrific encounters while they try to seal the
dimensional gates that are opening up everywhere. However, almost 20
years have passed since the first edition was released, so we needed
to make some substantial changes to the mechanics to prepare it for
today's game market. Perhaps the biggest and most innovative change
was to the skill system.

In all of the existing 'adventure' boardgames I've seen, skills are a
fixed value. That is, a specific character is either good or bad at
each type of skill in the game, and that's it unless items are found
to increase the skill. However, it is usually the case that players
aren't given enough ways to avoid having to use the skills their
character is bad at, so things start to devolve into a luckfest. In
the new edition of Arkham, players can have their characters 'focus'
on and improve different skills at different times. This allows the
player some degree of control, as he can put his attention towards the
skills he thinks he is most likely to need this turn. Granted, the
player is still not entirely sure what skills he'll need each turn,
but he can plan for some contingencies, and an experienced player
becomes more and more able to predict what he'll need next.

Another interesting aspect of the game was actually borrowed from CCGs
(no, not collectibility, calm down), or perhaps more accurately,
Cosmic Encounter. In the original edition, Cthulhu and the other Great
Old Ones weren't as big a deal as I felt they should have been. In the
new edition, they're the ultimate objective of the game. At the start
of the game, a deck of 8 'Ancient Ones' (FFG's term for all of the god
creatures in the mythos) is shuffled up and one is picked at random.
This Ancient One affects the rules of the game, usually all game long.
For instance, Ithaqua causes an unnatural blizzard to strike the city
of Arkham, making it dangerous for characters to end their turns
outside. Cthulhu, on the other hand, lowers the characters' maximum
sanity and stamina by 1, making it easier for them to go insane or get
knocked unconscious. These powers affect the way the investigators
have to play so substantially that it's almost like having 8 different
games to play. Should too many gates open up in Arkham, the Ancient
One awakens, and the investigators all gang up for one last ditch
effort to try and stop it. Of course, if the Ancient One wakes up, the
investigators usually only have a slim chance of winning, so they want
to close all the gates instead if they can.

There were a lot of other changes made to the specifics of the game to
make it easier to understand, quicker to play, and more story-oriented
than ever, but suffice it to say that the game has undergone
significant changes. We'll have the rules online sometime in the next
few weeks so that folks can judge for themselves.

As for the physical components, I think players are going to be
extremely pleased. We've used some of the best art from our CCG and
ordered some new art to really bring the mythos to life. There are on
the order of 300 or so cards in the game, large reference sheets for
each of the 16 different investigators (each with their own unique
special ability) and 8 Ancient Ones, a board as big as the one in the
A Game of Thrones boardgame (with an awesome view of the city of
Arkham and full-color art for each location and Other World), and a
heaping helping of cardboard tokens and markers (including around 60
large full-color monster tokens with their abilities printed right on
them). The quality of the components will be familiar to fans who have
A Game of Thrones, Doom: the Boardgame, or Twilight Imperium 3rd
Edition.

In any event, I believe that it should be out in mid-May to mid-June,
depending on the vagaries of shipping, and I'm really looking forward
to seeing how folks react to it. I think that it pushes the
German/American hybrid style of design off in yet another direction
that hasn't been explored much yet, and I think that boardgame fans
(and Lovecraft fans in particular) are really going to enjoy it.

Tom:  Warcraft and Doom are both excellent conversions of computer
games to board games.  Did you find these conversions easier than
normal designs; or were they more difficult, knowing that you had a
rabid fan base to deal with?

Kevin: They weren't any harder to deal with than your average licensed
property.  I've found that most video game franchise fans are pretty
reasonable about conversions if you just keep the core assumptions of
the franchise the same and adapt it to the medium you're working with.
So, Doom: the board game is about running around a maze of corridors
on Mars and shooting demonic invaders; but it adds the elements of
teamwork, gives each marine individual strengths, and adds an invader
player to affect the environment in various ways to surprise the
marines (sort of like being a level designer working for id). These
elements aren't in the video game Doom, at least not directly, but
fans enjoy them because they're a new way to experience a familiar
setting. You don't want to deviate so far from the video game that it
becomes an entirely new game, but you want enough difference to give
players a reason to play both the video game and the board game.

Tom:  Are there any expansions planned for Doom?  The game certainly
seems to be an excellent candidate for expansion.

Kevin: Yeah, we've got one on the schedule for later this year and
I've put some thought into the topic in my spare time. I'm thinking it
would most likely have a number of additional monsters from Doom 3
(I've been watching the online community to see what monsters they
want the most), some new marine cards, demonic and airless room tiles,
printed versions of the difficulty cards, and another campaign, among
other things. Adding more marines may be problematic, but I've been
thinking on how it could be done, so maybe that will be possible too.

Tom:  One thing that has impressed me with your games is that you
include the rules for the game on your website before the game is
released.  What are the benefits and drawbacks of doing this?

Kevin: Well, the benefits generally greatly outweigh the drawbacks.
Posting rules online allows players to get an early look at the game,
which has generated a lot more enthusiasm than disappointment for us.
It also allows folks to print out and pass around the rules to their
gaming friends, so that if there's a game they're extremely excited to
play, they can have the rules learned by the time it arrives in stores
and immediately get to playing.  Finally, there are the customer
service benefits. Sometimes games get packed out a bit wrong, and the
worst is when the rules don't get included. Well, if the rules are
online, then the customer can still play while waiting for replacement
rules from us (which admittedly, don't take that long to arrive, but
it's the principle of the thing.) The one real drawback I've seen is
that, for some games, looking at the rules in a vacuum just doesn't
cut it. They might have a lot of their rules on their components or in
the scenarios, or the impact of the total package might be lost. Doom,
for instance, doesn't look like much if all you have is the rulebook
to go from, since the rules are very simple. Without the dice, the
cards, the miniatures, and the scenario guide, you don't really get
the full impact of the game. When looking at rules online, it's
important to remember that they are only a part of the equation that
makes a game great.

Tom:  Is there a method to releasing information about a game (other
than the rules)?  How long must a project be kept "secret", and what
are the reasons why?

Kevin: Well, there are a couple of different reasons you'd hold
information back.  One, you have a great new platform/mechanic for a
game that you don't want to get 'scooped' on. We don't worry about
that too much; since by the time we're ready to give out information,
it's too late for any competitor to jump in anyway. Two, you're too
busy to get to it. That's more frequently a problem, since by the time
(for instance) that it's time for me to start letting out Arkham
Horror info, I'm already deep in the bowels of the next game, so I
have to slip that sort of thing into my normal schedule.  Finally,
there's controlling the buzz. Ideally, you don't want people to get
excited about a game too long in advance of its release. Buzz can only
sustain itself so long in most cases, so you want to kind of take it
easy until you know that fans will soon be able to hold the game in
their hands.  But really, I'm not a marketing major, so that's as
close to a science as I get with previews. Mostly, you just try to
keep the fans happy and try to prevent frustrating situations from
arising as much as possible.

Tom:  Are there any marketing great things or errors that you've done
in the past that you've learned from?

Kevin: Nothing really stands out, sorry. I focus more on the game end
of things than the sales end.

Tom:  I saw your name as one of the playtesters for Twilight Imperium
3.  What was that like?

Kevin: Well, basically we'd start in the afternoon and stay late after
work and play until folks had to go home. It was okay though; we got
free pizza, a sure sign of a great playtest. :) Towards the end of
each evening we'd have a discussion period and talk about what was
working and what wasn't. Then, Chris would go back and make changes
before the next playtest, and we'd do it all over again.

Tom:  Mutiny has some very similar characteristics to Fist of
Dragonstones.  Did that game influence your design of Mutiny?

Kevin: Absolutely. Fist of Dragonstones was one of the first
boardgames I discovered on my own and got really excited about. It's a
fun design and a classy production. Bruno Faidutti in general is an
inspiration to me, with lots of intriguing designs that make me want
to think, "Hmm, how would I have approached that design?" As for the
similarities, the rum in Mutiny is pretty much directly inspired by
the fairy gold from Fist of Dragonstones, and the pirate roles are a
nod to Citadels. I was really pleased to hear that he liked it, since
it had several roots in his work.

Tom:  Are the majority of your games designed solely by you, or do you
work with a team?

Kevin: It varies. Some games are more mine than others. Sometimes I'm
given a loose goal and work to meet it, while other times I'm given a
very specific design feature to work with. Both methods have their own
challenges and rewards. I'm a bit of a loner, so I best enjoy solo
projects with the ability to talk to others if I get stuck. I've
learned that sometimes your best ideas can come from designing to
spec, though, so I always try to give every project my best work, no
matter where the idea came from.

Tom:  How often do you playtest your games and with how many different groups?

Kevin: This is gonna sound evasive to some, but I can't really help
that. I playtest as often as I can, with as many different groups as
possible.  Ultimately, it varies by project. I feel that playtesting
is extraordinarily important, and I always try to get as much done as
a
project's timetable allows for. It's never enough, though, no matter
how hard you try. That's one of the great disappointments of game
design, I feel. No matter how many problems you catch, there are
always unexpected issues in any game of sufficient complexity and
size. There gets to be a combinatorial explosion that works against a
perfect release unless you have the luxury of many months or even
years of playtesting. I work hard to ensure that every game is
well-balanced and delivers an enjoyable play
experience, but it's always a race against time.

That's why it's important to not only playtest as much as possible,
it's also important to provide after-sales support. FAQs, errata, and
free web enhancements demonstrate to the customer that you're not
leaving them high and dry once you've got their money. These things
are a commitment to stand by the quality of your products and own up
to mistakes when necessary, and the vast majority of gamers seem to
appreciate that.

Tom:  What benefits do you, as a designer, have from working solely
for one company.

Kevin: Well, a steady paycheck, for one thing. But really, my main job
is as a developer. The design work is more exciting and often the
thing that gets me noticed, but I've had some very satisfying
development experiences: Game of Thrones and Arkham Horror, for
instance. Both turned out better than I had hoped, and the physical
package was there to bring home the game experience.

Another nice thing about working with a single company is that I know
the people I work for pretty well now, and there's a lot more of an
open door to any game ideas I might have. After all, I'm a known
quantity with a past record of success. As trust develops, there's
more freedom to pursue artistic expression. A similar relationship can
take years of freelancing to establish, or may never be reached at
all.

Tom:  With the vast amount of games coming out from Fantasy Flight -
your 2005 array is staggering! - how do you keep yourself from mixing
the games up in your head?  Do mechanics from the different games tend
to merge at all?

Kevin: Fortunately, I'm not the only designer/developer. Christian
deals with a fair amount of the games as well, and some of them are
just distribution deals; so I really don't have to do much for those.
If I was solely responsible for that list of games, I'd be in trouble.

Tom:  I've heard that the game Descent is using the Doom system.  So
is this going to basically be a similar game to Doom, but rather using
a fantasy setting?

Kevin: More or less. It's a revised/expanded Doom system, so it
features a new version of the one-roll combat system (with no random
ammo loss and an element that lets your characters' skills count
without any modifiers), tons more skill cards for the heroes than the
marines had, stricter limitations on the bad guy player (the
Overlord), and a different way of scaling the dungeons for different
numbers of players. There are also more miniatures (about 100, if all
goes well), more dice, more cardboard, etc. This game will be
significantly larger than Doom, and it will have 9 scenarios with it
instead of 5. I'm hoping to distill the fantasy roleplaying experience
into a boardgame that can be played in 2-4 hours with very little
preparation time. I'm hoping that Descent becomes a gateway game like
Heroquest was in its time, encouraging a new generation of gamers to
try out boardgaming and roleplaying. Of course, if all it manages is
to be a lot of fun, I think I'll be able to live with that too. ;)

Tom:  Thanks for partaking in this interview, Kevin!  Any last words
for our readers?

Kevin: Yes, I'd like to thank everyone who has played and enjoyed my
games. You guys are letting me make a living designing and developing
games, and I'm profoundly grateful for the opportunity!

Tom Vasel
"Real men play board games."
April, 2005

Interviews by an Optimist # 27 - Aaron Fuegi

Aaron says this about himself...
"Aaron Fuegi has played games since he was a kid, early on mostly with
his brother.  Early memorable games we played (some of which were very
small print runs that few will have heard of) include National
Liberation Front, a war game about the battle of Leyte, and early
Dungeons and Dragons.  Later we moved into the Steve Jackson Games
"pocket box" series of games including Ogre/GEV, Illuminati, and Car
Wars.  These games are probably what led me to my first Origins around
1980 and later my first GenCon.

During college, I got introduced to Cosmic Encounter (Mayfair edition)
and also played a bunch of computer games and RPGs.  In graduate
school, I kind of took a break from games other than the occasional
poker and Cosmic game, and skipped the Magic craze even though a bunch
of friends came back from Gen Con '93 playing it like crazy.

I got back into gaming more seriously after moving to Boston in late
'94, first joining a group that played Cosmic Encounter with a
homemade set of 300 powers twice a week.  I also learned Settlers in
'95 and a bunch of older Avalon Hill titles including Titan, which I
started playing every week with a very strong group of players at
MIT's Strategic Games Society.  Although never really a fan of
Settlers, it did partly lead me into the rest of the German games
including the wonderful Eüphrat & Tigris.  Other games which I've
played a ton of over the years include Hannibal: Rome vs. Carthage,
Wizard, Mü, and now my current and long obsession with Tichu.

I am probably best known for the "Internet Top 100 Games List", which
I started back in 1998 to try to make sense of what games,
particularly German games, people thought the most of and hopefully
give people new to the hobby a way of finding the cream of the crop
and avoiding spending a lot on games which they aren't likely to
enjoy.

Tom:  Aaron, you seem to be a pretty big fan of Cosmic Encounter.  How
do you think the game has aged over the last two decades?

Aaron: Well, given that I used to play the game some 100 times a year
and now only play once or twice, I guess it really has aged for me,
unfortunately.  I also have something of an internal conflict over how
to play the game.  The Avalon Hill version doesn't have nearly enough
there for me to find the game very interesting but our home-made set
of 300 powers and additional flares, edicts, lucre, moons, etc. -
probably goes too far the other way.  The great thing about the game
is that every time you play it is very different, and so it never gets
boring, in addition to a great theme and wonderful artwork. However,
while I like the interesting interactions of the huge number of
elements we play with, it leads to a lot of rule problems, as we are
not sure how Power X interacts with Flare Y, especially in combination
with Power Z. Trying to deal with these issues could sometimes bring
games to a halt for a long time as we tried to hash it out, and it
just got crazy.  Going back to a complete Eon set with all the
expansions might have been a good thing to do to reduce the complexity
somewhat.

As for the whole debate over editions, I think both the Eon and
Mayfair sets were very well done and both make for a very good game,
with me slightly preferring the Eon rules. I think Hasbro Avalon Hill
made a huge mistake and told them before they released the game that I
thought so, by making their edition only support 4 players, have no
flares and for some reason changing all the terminology (Edicts ->
Artifacts and such) of the game.  Supporting only 4 players seemed a
particularly bad mistake in a game which really doesn't play well with
less than 4 and plays very well with 5 and 6, possibly better
than with 4.  Four players is also the number you get the greatest
competition with other games at, so not supporting the rarer 5 and 6
seemed crazy to me.  I think in this day and age, the Mayfair release
was pretty perfect - provide a complete game in the main edition and
then put the more complex expansions (moons, lucre, etc...) in one
significant expansion.

Tom:  Are there any modern games that, in your opinion, give the
randomness and diversity of Cosmic Encounter?

Aaron: It took me a bit to think of it; but Duel of Ages, which I
believe you really like as well, is the only modern board game I play
that I can think of.  As with the original Cosmic, it has a ton of
characters (the equivalent here of Cosmic powers) and expansions and
each game really does feel very different. This is a game, which I
expected to not like at all when it first came out, but really enjoy
playing and will happily set aside a Saturday for.

Interestingly, this is one of a few games I really like (the other
which immediately comes to mind is Star Wars: Queen's Gambit) where I
find that, although the outcome is often determined greatly by luck,
there is quite a bit of skill in the game.  That skill may only let
you win 60% of the time while at Chess you would win 100% of the time,
but I find that doesn't bother me.  I just want there to be lots of
interesting decisions to make throughout, and both of these games have
that.

Tom:  Always great to meet another Duel of Ages fan!  You mention
chess - are there any pure abstract games that you enjoy?

Aaron: I think Chess is the only pure abstract I have ever played any
reasonable amount at, and that was years ago although I'm still very
happy to play the occasional game. However, I love card games, which
are of course pretty abstract.

Tom:  There are a LOT of card games published each year, many times
slight variations on a trick-taking or rummy theme.  Are there any
card games that particularly stand out to you?

Aaron: The three card games that I have played the most, each for me
better than the last, are Wizard, Mu and Tichu.  I particularly like
the partnership aspects of Mu and Tichu, and each has a ton of depth
to it; so that players still have room for improvement 50 or 100 games
in.  Tichu has for the last several years been my very favorite game,
playing well over 500 games in the last five years and appealing to a
very large number of people.  I have been at game nights where there
were twelve people, and all twelve were playing three Tichu games,
with hundreds of other games to choose from.

Tichu was released in 1991 but it took till 1999 for me to have even
heard the name of the game, and still it seemed nobody was playing it
in the US till 2000 and later.  Once I discovered it in 2000 and
realized how good it was, I found this to be a real shame and have
tried to do what I can to make it more accessible here.  I think
originally one of the reasons for nobody playing it here was that,
unfortunately, the original rules translation on the Game Cabinet was
pretty poor and vague, so I took it upon myself to update that
translation and try to clarify all the ambiguities.  I later, at Peter
Sarrett's request, wrote up a strategy guide for the game that
appeared in The Game Report.  For anyone interested, the updated
rules, strategy guide and some other useful things (like an English
cheat-sheet card) on the game are up on my website at
http://www.lasthomelyhouse.com/Games/Tichu/

On the subject of card games, another excellent card-game series is
the Mystery Rummy (including Wyatt Earp) series by designer Mike
Fitzgerald. Other favorite card games for me are 6 Nimmt!, For Sale,
and the classics of Skat, Spades and Bridge.

Tom:  Many of these games are mentioned on your "Internet Top 100
Games List".  Can you tell us how such a thing came into being?

Aaron: I started the list in 1998, based on Tristrom Cooke's "Internet
Top 100 SF/Fantasy List" for science fiction and fantasy books, which
I had found to be an excellent guide for me to finding SF books that I
hadn't read and would enjoy.  This was and has continued for me to be
the primary goal of the list - give people a recommendation/buying
guide to finding the best games out there without having to play and
possibly suffer through a lot of poor games.  The name, format, and
ranking system (which later changed) were all based on Tristrom's
list.  In the games world, Brian Bankler had previously done a
one-time compilation of a similar list, but I preferred Tristrom's
methodology and wanted the list to be ongoing (generated weekly), even
though it was of course more work for me.  At the time, there was no
other list ranking games based on player ratings.

Two people who also greatly helped the list along at the beginning
were Joe Huber and Rick Heli, both of whom already had rating lists;
so sending them to me was a pretty easy thing but immediately caused
the number of games on the list to jump to over 1000 by the 10th
edition.  Rick also sent me a ton of updates and corrections for the
Publisher/Designer/Year info, which wasn't nearly as easy to come by
then as it is now, with the primary source being Luding for German
games and various different places for American games, no huge
one-stop shop as BGG is now.  Oh, regarding the possible confusion of
the "100" in the name.  I generate both an edition with only the top
100 and a full edition (currently approaching 5000 games).  The Top
100 is regularly posted on
the Rec.Games.Board newsgroup but both editions are always available
on my website at http://www.lasthomelyhouse.com/Top100/

Tom:  Do you think that Boardgamegeek has replaced your list, or
rather - what purpose does your list serve today?

Aaron: This issue came up recently on the Yahoo spielfrieks discussion
group, and I am going to quote a post by Wei-Hwa Huang who wrote:
        "For me, personally, I find the Top 100 list more useful than the BGG
        list.  The reasons are selfish -- the Top 100 List matches my personal
        ratings more closely than the BGG List.  This is especially
        interesting as I don't vote for the Top 100 list, but my BGG ratings
        are counted as part of the average.  :)"

Now, Boardgamegeek certainly has far more people submitting ratings
and people accessing it (and that's good cause I couldn't handle that
number of rating submissions with the way I do the list).  However,
while I've seriously considered discontinuing the list, my impressions
agree with Wei-Hwa, that my list is 'better' at matching my feel for
what people I know playing these games think are the best games out
there.  There are some games in the BGG top 100 that I've never even
heard of.  If the lists matched more closely, I would almost certainly
discontinue mine and save myself the work.

Tom:  Do you think that it's possible that some games become stale
over time, starting with a high ranking from people's initial
impressions, and then after future playings becoming more boring? Many
of these people won't bother to go back and change their rating - how
do you combat this problem on your list?

Aaron: Other people seem more worried about this than I am.  I haven't
seen much evidence of this idea having much effect.  First off, a fair
number of people do update their ratings pretty regularly (and
generally they are the people with more ratings submitted so have a
larger per capita effect on the list).  Also, it seems to me that if
it happens, it probably affects all games, at least after some time
has passed, about equally except those games which came out before the
list came into existence so could never benefit from the "its new so
it must be good" ratings effect that some people seem to have.  This
effect (at least as it impacts a game's ranking) is combatted also by
the Score
calculation penalizing games with few ratings, which will usually
include really new games.

I did at one point have someone suggest sending an annual email to all
the people who had submitted ratings with their current ratings and
suggesting they might want to update them.  This was a pretty good
idea and wouldn't be that hard to do and some people might actually
even really appreciate it. I never got around to doing it but would do
so if I really thought this was a significant issue.

Tom:  How often do people update their ratings at your site?

Aaron: It varies incredibly.  Some do it every couple of months and
some never do it.

Tom:  Has the amount of people contributing to the list increased or
decreased over the past couple of years?

Aaron: I don't track this, so this is purely a guess; but I think the
number of new contributors has decreased a bit.

Tom:  As you've been monitoring the list over the past several years,
are there any interesting things you have noted?

Aaron: Well, here's a couple of things.  The only three games ever to
be at the top of the list are Settlers, E&T and Puerto Rico.  At the
bottom of the list, since I changed the method of calculating score at
edition 73, the only games that have been at the bottom are War and
Tic-Tac-Toe (with one exception due to what was a bug - a Knizia game
even). I personally don't think Tic-Tac-Toe deserves this, but the
voters have spoken.

Tom:  Because of the way numbers work, is it even possible for Puerto
Rico to ever be dethroned?

Aaron: I'm not sure what you mean about the numbers, but sure.  I
think Puerto Rico isn't going to be pushed out by an existing game on
the list, based on its current lead, but see no reason why a new game
couldn't come along and displace it.

Tom:  What games are your personal favorites?

Aaron: My top 10 games (and list ranking as of writing this) are Tichu
(#47), Titan (#265), Hannibal: Rome vs. Carthage (#55), Euphrat &
Tigris (#2), Crokinole (#95), Showmanager (#56), Time's Up/Celebrities
(#70), Black Vienna (#343), Cosmic  Encounter (#73), and Aquarium
Derby (prototype of #778, which I prefer to the released game).

Tom:  What do you think is the best use of your list?  Is it best used
as a purchasing tool?

Aaron: Yes, although more generally, as a guide to what games to check
out, preferrably to try before buying; but if that is not an option, a
purchasing guide.  I think it is also a pretty interesting reference
for what is the best (rated) game in a particular series or by a
particular designer or whatever.

However individuals find it to be useful is the best use, though.  The
above is just my expectation and understanding of the most common use
people make of it.

Tom:  How do you spend most of your gaming time?  What games are you
currently playing a lot of?

Aaron: Well, I play Tichu far more than anything else, more than 100
games a year.  I also play a bunch of Titan every year, although not
as often as I used to, due to the dispersal of the main players more
than any other reason.  Other games I play a bunch every year are
Crokinole, Liar's Dice and Poker.  Including more recent stuff whose
staying power isn't so clear, I have been playing a bunch of San Juan
(which I actually significantly prefer to Puerto Rico), St Petersburg,
Goa, and Attika.

The last few months I have also gotten really into the MMORPG computer
game World of Warcraft, which is really fun but incredibly addicting
and an amazing time leech.

Tom:  Do you enjoy board games more than computer games, or do they
combat for your time?  What do you think the computer game market has
had on board games as a whole?

Aaron: As a general thing, I much prefer board games, which are a
lifelong interest. With computer games, what happens is that I usually
get really into one game for a period of a month or three, but then
reach a point where I grow tired of it and basically don't play it
anymore.  The company Blizzard's series of games, in particular,
really appeal to me, and I play almost no others and never play more
than one computer game at a time, excepting quick fillers like
FreeCell and such.

I think the single biggest advantage of computer games is that you can
play them absolutely any time you want, not having to worry about
getting other players together and now, with online games, you can
still play with many other players.  The graphical immersion and
long-term experience, particularly with MMORPG games in building
characters over a long period, I also find very appealing and a
powerful draw into keeping playing the game, much as with RPGs which I
no longer play but miss some aspects of.  One other special aspect of
World of Warcraft, for me, has also been that I have been playing the
game a lot with my brother, who lives in New Mexico while I live in
Boston.  It is really nice to be able to play and chat with him about
the game, when we
only get to see each other face to face a few times a year.

Still, overall, I much prefer board and card games and playing in the
same room with the other players.

Tom:  Do you ever worry that people are tending to disect games too
much, rather than just play them for enjoyment?  Are the statistics on
the interent, getting in the way of "fun"?

Aaron: Well, I hope not.  I am a naturally analytical person so I find
some of the 'dissection' kind of fun in its own way, although
certainly it can go too far, and everyone has a different tolerance
level.  Hopefully, people can just stop reading stuff that goes beyond
what they are interested in.  I get the feeling that people get more
annoyed with the in-depth analysis of particular games than with more
general statistics such as my list.

Tom:  Are there any upcoming games that you are looking forward to?

Aaron: I don't follow the upcoming releases as much as I used to, and
never did follow them nearly as much as some so there may very well be
things of real interest to me that aren't on my radar.  Having said
that, just when you asked this question, I read your list of the
upcoming Fantasy Flight games and am looking forward to the War of the
Ring expansion and to the World of Warcraft game.  However, for me the
gameplay is so much the most important issue for games and is
basically impossible to judge without having played the game myself or
having had friends with similar opinions play it and recommend it,
which makes it hard to really anticipate games.  The above two I
really like the themes of, but for all I know I won't like the games
at all, particularly the WoW one.

More generally, designers whose work I particularly look forward to
include the heavier Knizia games, Dirk Henn games and Doris & Frank
games.

Tom:  What are your thoughts on the future of board games, and how the
internet will play a role?

Aaron: I think the future is very bright.  German style game companies
continue to release a large number of very good games every year.  The
American style companies seem to be getting much stronger in the last
few years and releasing, as usual, a lot of very strongly themed
games, some with good gameplay and some not of course.  The Internet
continues to be a very powerful tool for connecting gamers together
and letting people find out tons of information of all sorts on the
games.  Both BGG and  BrettSpielWelt continue to be amazing resources
for information and online play.

Tom:  Aaron, we appreciate your efforts on the internet, and the time
you took to do this interview.  Any final words for our readers?

Aaron: I'd just like to thank you for doing this interview series,
which I've been really enjoying and reading all of them.  I feel that
I've been getting a lot of insight into the people in our little
gaming world from this series.  I'm also honored to be included.

Tom Vasel
April, 2005
"Real men play board games."

I look forward to each Silver Line release from Fantasy Flight,
regardless of theme.   Yet some themes get me more interested than
others, and Senator (Fantasy Flight Games, 2004 - Eric Lang) had me
intrigued.  The Roman Senate fascinates me, and I hoped for some
thematic play when trying the game out.  The pieces looked good, and
the rules, when I first read them, seemed bloodthirsty and thematic.

Bloodthirsty seems too mild of a word for this game.  Between blatant
attacks on other players, assassin cards, and chaotic special cards -
final scores are very low, and the game leaves one with an unsatisfied
feeling.   I wouldn't mind all this backstabbing and aggressiveness so
much, but the game seems to end before it really begins.   The event
cards themselves make the game less fun to play; and while we laughed
a lot when we played, no one wanted to play it again.

Each player takes seven influence cards in their color (numbered
1,1,2,2,2,5, and assassin).  Players keep the cards in their hand and
place a large scroll marker in front of them.  A pile of "agenda"
tokens are shuffled, and a number of them are placed in the middle of
the table (determined by number of players) - forming the agendas "on
the docket".  Two consul tokens and a veto token are placed next to
the docket, and a pile of event cards is shuffled and placed in the
middle of the table.  The first of three turns is ready to begin.  One
player is chosen to go first (the last to have seen a movie about
ancient Rome, which always seems to be Gladiator, for some reason).

To start each turn, the top event card is turned over, causing some
sort of event that will effect the round.  The start player then
chooses either an agenda or a consul token for "debate" (auction).
The player then either plays one or more of their influence cards or
"withdraws" from the debate (passes).   When playing cards, players
must either play a total number higher than the previous bid, or play
an assassin card.  If an assassin card is played, all influence cards
played by ALL players are discarded, and the agenda is discarded (if
the consul is up for grabs, then it is flipped over to show that it
can no longer be voted on this round.)  If no assassin is played, then
the last player left in the debate, with all other players having
withdrawn, is the winner.  The winner places their influence cards
behind their scroll (discarding them), while all other players get
their cards back.  The winner takes the agenda and places it either in
front of their scroll marker or an opponent's scroll marker.  Before
doing this, however, they have the option of using the scroll's
special power.  Each scroll is one of six types, each with a special
ability:
- War:  This agenda allows the winning player to name a card number
(or Assassin).  All other players must discard one card of this type
if possible.
- Trade:  This agenda allows a player to pick one agenda from the
docket and immediately claim it (except Imperial agendas).
- Taxes:  This agenda allows the player to take the veto token from
either the middle of the table or the player who currently has it.
The player may use the veto token to refuse an agenda given to them by
another player on future turns.
- Rebellion:  This agenda allows a player to discard one of the
current agendas on the docket or flip a consul to their "discarded"
side.
- Public Works:  This agenda allows a player to return a discarded
number card to their hand.
- Imperial:  This agenda is immediately placed BEHIND a player's scroll.

Each agenda is "opposed" to two of the other agendas (the Imperial
agenda is opposed to nothing).  If a player gets two or more agendas
that oppose each other (given to them by another player), they discard
all of the opposing agendas.  When a player wins a consul, they move
all the agendas in front of their scroll to behind their scroll.
These agendas are now "safe" and do not cause conflicts any longer.

Each event card causes a unique effect on the game turn:  Either
- add three more agendas to the docket, or
- all players, even losers, discard played influence cards, or
- consuls cannot be bid on this round, or
- all Imperial agendas are discarded from the docket, or
- players cannot play more than two influence cards per debate, or
- players MUST play two cards for their initial bid in a debate.

After all the agendas in a docket are depleted, or all players have
used their cards, the round ends.  The docket is filled back up with
agendas, and players get their cards back.  The next round then
begins, and three rounds are played, after which the game ends.  The
player with the most agendas (whether safe or not) is the winner -
with ties broken by the player with the most Imperial agendas.

Some comments on the game...

1.) Components:  The game has sterling components, as Fantasy Flight's
games just keep on getting better and better.  The agendas are shaped
like scrolls and have an icon on them showing what type they are, as
well as two small icons to show the agendas they are opposed to.  The
artwork on the cards and box are very thematic, and the large scroll
tokens, while not tremendously necessary, are overdone to the point
where they are the game's best feature.  Everything fits very well
into the typical Fantasy Flight generic insert in the small box, but
the game just looks good.

2.) Rules:  I will state that this game has some of the best rulebooks
I've seen from Fantasy Flight, and maybe any company.   The rulebook
(five pages each in seven languages) was very clear and made the game
very understandable.  With pictures and an illustrated example, it was
very easy to jump in and start playing.  It's fairly simple to teach
and learn, and everyone I taught the game to understood it with ease.

3.) Assassins:  The assassins are a neat concept, as players are
always cautious about bidding their best cards.  But in practice the
game just becomes a bloody affair.  Considering that each player will
play their assassin on a different turn means that three to five of
the auctions will end with many deaths.  This means that players won't
win too many auctions, as they lose many of their cards.  Assassins
can be a painful blow, and there's not much you can do to stop them
(make idle threats, I guess); so while they are fun to play, they're
not so much fun to receive - especially as your cards will probably be
assassinated six to twelve times a game.

4.) Dwindling auctions:  Since assassins knock out one third of the
auctions that means that the remaining auctions must be important.
But considering that the trade and rebellion agendas basically remove
two agendas each from the docket, the actual debates that are won are
few indeed.  Actually, I have yet to see a consul debate won by
anyone.  It's so important to get your agendas to the "safe" zone and
so important that no one else does, that an assassin is pretty much
played every time.

5.) Imperial agendas:  I thought that these agendas were so much more
important than all the other agendas.  Since they are always "safe",
don't conflict with other agendas, and break ties, they are huge, hot
commodities.  Everyone wants one - and for good reason - in one game I
played, Imperial agendas were the only ones to be scored by game's end
- all the others had been canceled out.  It's just too easy to hurt
other people.  If someone has won two or more agendas, it's a given
that someone - ANYONE - is going to give them the agenda that causes
them to discard all their agendas.  And there's precious little the
player can do to stop them, as their cards are extremely limited.

6.) "King making":  I'm not a big fan of "king making" in games, and
Senator really promotes such a thing.  Players often find themselves
in this position by games end.  Who should they give the agenda to
that they've won on the last turn?  Should they take it themselves,
when they have no chance of winning?  Or should they give it to
another player - but who?  Then the player they give it to complains
that they've just thrown the game to the other player (which they
have), and it just leaves a raw knot in my stomach.

7.) Event Cards:  Even with the problems I've outlined above, I still
would find the game slightly playable.  But the event cards really
tanked the game for me.  Three of them made the game even more unfun
(discarding all played cards, playing only two cards per debate, must
play two cards per debate) - as they made an extremely tight bidding
game even tighter.  If I play the game again (and I might - I really
like the theme!), I refuse to play with these cards, as all they do is
bog the game down.  If you get the game, I recommend discarding the
event cards, they add nothing but a set of strict, annoying rules to
the game.

8.) Fun Factor:  Somehow, we managed to find fun in the game.  Maybe
it was just pathetic laughter, as we watched agenda after agenda go to
the discard heap.  Were there really THAT many assassins in ancient
Rome?  And did assassins wipe out the entire Senate!?  But still, we
managed to get in the mood when playing, and that helped the
experience (which was rather quick) go even faster.


I can't really recommend Senate, even to those who like bloodthirsty,
"stab your neighbor in the back" type games.  It just doesn't have
enough payoff.  Hand management is so tight, and auctions occur too
infrequently (too many have assassins end them), that a round is over
before it gets started.  When a final score is "2" to "1" to "1" to
"0", you know that the game hinges on too few decisions.  Add in the
event cards, and the game becomes a raving mess.  I really, really,
really have enjoyed recent Fantasy Flight offerings; they are great
games with tremendous components and fabulous rules.  This one simply
has the good components.

Tom Vasel
"Real men play board games."

Interviews by an Optimist # 26 - Kristian Roald Amundsen Ostby

Kristian says this about himself...

"I was born on February the 23rd, 1980, in the Norwegian city Stavanger. My parents were studying at the time, so we moved around a bit before we ended up in Tønsberg (just south of Oslo), where I grew up. But before that, they managed to give me the name Kristian Roald Amundsen Østby.

I was always interested in board games, mathematical puzzles, word games and things like that, but my first recollections of playing what could be called 'real board games' are playing "Ave Caesar" and "Hero's Quest" when I was about 10. These games were bought on trips to Denmark, because they had a much larger selection of board games in Denmark than in Norway at that time.  The game designing I did in that time, mostly was on the computer: I programmed a lot of different and simple games in Basic - but they all
had one thing in common: They were all multiplayer games. I probably felt that games should be a social affair of some sort...or I just wasn't very good at programming artificial intelligence.

At about 12 I started to play Avalon Hill games, like Diplomacy and Kremlin, and I continued playing American games for many years. When the German games started arriving, I didn't fancy them much at first. I mostly found them too simplistic, or thought that the theme felt very artificial. But after a while I managed to see beyond their razor thin themes and discover that pure mechanics could also be fun.  I made a lot of board games at that time, and I got a small game published when I was 16. It was a very simple game, and I have found out that it reminds somewhat of mastermind (I actually hadn't played mastermind at that time). As I have become more and more interested in game design, I have become more and more fascinated about different game mechanics. I would almost always rather play a new game than to play an old classic, in hopes of seeing some new interesting mechanics.

Currently, I am living in Trondheim, studying medicine in the 4th year (especially interested in neurology). I have a collection of about 250 board games in my small student's flat, and one of my other interests - films - take up space too, in the form of DVDs. So luckily I am allowed to have some shelves in the common living room.

I always have some board game design projects going on, and I spend relatively much money on cardboard and glue. Most of the games I design would be too complex for the Norwegian board game publishers, but two years ago I sent them "The Mutiny on Little Blue", which they wanted even though that game was actually a bit more complex than the games they usually publish.

Tom:  What's the board game scene like in Norway?

Kristian: Strategy games and RPGs have been for those particularly interested. We have had specialized stores for board games and RPGs in the biggest Norwegian cities for years, and we now have two great internet based board game stores in Norway doing their best to make the world of board games accessible to the common people.

Traditionally, though, I think most Norwegians have thought of board games as a children's pastime. The games sold for youth and adults have been trivia games - and trivia games only.  We mainly have one sole game publisher in Norway, and that publisher has been focusing on children's games and, yes, trivia games. The publisher has had an almost complete monopoly on the game market for a very long time - only to be challenged by some translations of Ravensburger games, etc.  But the last couple of years the common book stores have begun to include games like Settlers, Carcassonne and Bohnanza in their assortment, and these games have shown to be quite popular. So now I think people's attitudes toward board games are starting to change. You are no longer necessarily a freak if you enjoy board games as a grown up. But there will still be a while before people like me can come out of our game filled closets and be completely open and honest about our grotesquely oversized game collections.

Tom:  What board games and/or designers have had the biggest influence on you as a designer?

Kristian: Of course I have been influenced by the 'German wave' as a whole, especially in that I try to make my games fit within the two-hours-playing-time frame, and I am also more conscious of that I should try to make my game mechanics elegant and intuitive. But I have been making games for fun since before the German games first hit Norway, and I do not think that my games have changed very much in nature - only in quality. So it would be wrong to say that I am particularly influenced by any one game or designer. If any, it would have to be the company Eon and their highly original games, like Dune and Cosmic Encounter. I also want to make colorful and fun games like they did!

Tom:  Let's talk about your game, Mutiny on the Little Blue.  Can you give us background into the design of that game, and how it went from being an idea to a self-published game?

Kristian: When I make a game I usually find myself inspired by some particular theme, then I think of what I want my game to do or feel like, and I then develop a mechanic based on that. Because of this, my games tend to be less abstract. A game also has to have something original to it if I am to enjoy working on it. I would not be happy with 'redesigning old games', or to just combine elements from other games into a new game. If I had to choose, I would go for originality before refinement.

Well, but we were talking about The Mutiny on Little Blue. With this game, the design process was a bit unusual. Actually, I just woke up one day and had most of it clear - A ship sailing from island to island, with each island card showing different possible incomes for the crew members and the captain. This would have the crew members try to convince the blind captain of their identity - adjusting their lies to the other players' lies and to the captain's needs, and the captain having to weigh possibly high incomes against 'secure' low incomes - and of course we had the mutineers. It was all clear the moment I woke up, so I just had to make a prototype and balance the cards to make the players face the dilemmas I wanted them to face.

At first the game did not have different kinds of treasures - you just collected gold. The rather obvious feature of having to collect different kind of treasures was actually added rather late in the design process. And the game didn't have a board at first either, it
was just meant as a simple card-game. The Mutiny on Little Blue was a much simpler game than the games I usually make, so I thought that the Norwegian publisher might be interested. And they were. They even wanted me to make a board for it, which I was happy to do. Even though it wasn't really necessary for the game, I think it added flavor to the game - which might be especially important in a family game.

The sailing paths on the game board may seem simple, but I actually worked on it for some time as I had three requirements for it: I wanted to make sure the game would have approximately the same playing time no matter which way the boat sailed, I wanted some islands to be closer to the two mutiny islands to 'build up the tension' when the boat sailed there, and at last I wanted all the islands to have the same statistical number of visits. I even designed a small computer program to help me balance the whole thing. Solving small problems like this a very fun part of game designing, even when it isn't really that
important for the game as a whole.

Even though The Mutiny On Little Blue is a simple game, it is rather different from the other games in its publisher's assortment. The complexity actually is a bit higher than the other games, and they don't have many family games where face-to-face lying is so important. This is why I claimed the game to be designed 'with the aim of teaching the common folk the noble art of deception and swindling'. The 'Mate variant' I had to put on the game's web page. It couldn't be included in the game, as it would make the game too complex for the publisher. But with it The Mutiny On Little Blue can actually be a lot of fun even for hard-core gamers (Hard-core gamers in the right mood, that is, as it still is not a heavy strategy game).

The game publisher is owned by the same syndicate that also owns 'Serieforlaget', a Norwegian cartoon publisher. Therefore they have contacts with a lot of graphical artists, and I appreciated that they wanted to hear my opinion when it came to choosing an illustrator for the game. I was very happy with the illustrations that Kari Sortland did for the game.

Tom:  A lot of pirate games were released at Essen in '04.  How do you think yours stands out in such a crowd?

Kristian: Actually I never thought of "The Mutiny on Little Blue" as a 'pirate game'. I thought of the crew of the Little Blue as treasure hunters more than pirates, but I guess I was just being naive: Of course these sailors were no better than others.

So how does it stand out? Of all the pirate games of Essen '04, I only got to play Karibik. But from the impressions I have of the other games, I think it would be right to say that The Mutiny on Little Blue is the game closest to a 'party game'. In that it supports many
players, has simple rules, and is a social game. On the other hand, with all its lies and deceptions I guess it is more of an anti-social game, really.

Tom:  I'm curious as to how well you do at your own game.  Do you win most of the time?

Kristian: Would you believe me if I said yes? Well, I do win most of the time, but I have actually never beaten my younger brother. He is obviously a very good liar. That, by the way, goes for my grandmother too. When I played the game with my family, I was surprised to find that she would lie right into your face without hesitating for a moment. I guess you have two kinds of people: The ones like my family - cunning and devious - and then you have the ones like a friend of mine. He always tells the truth - he doesn't know how to do anything else, and he would start to flush and stutter only by the thought of saying something untrue. In this game he only bases his achievements on negotiations and his honest reputation. Well, he doesn't win the game, but he doesn't finish last either. It's strange that people can have such big problems with lying, but none whatsoever with tricking people with sly deals that favor mostly themselves.

Tom:  Is there a problem with encouraging deviousness in games?  For example, Diplomacy often leaves people extremely angry - sometimes years after the game - because of the deceit in the game.

Kristian: I think the reason why Diplomacy sometimes evokes such hard feelings, is because there is so much at stake. You have laid carefully thought out tactical and strategic plans of how to conquer Europe - and then the person who you had trusted and with whom you thought you shared the plans, ruins it all by deceiving you.

Games can be very emotional; and when you have invested a lot in your plans, and you even have trusted someone and shared your plans with them, the gap between your expectations and the real outcome of a turn can be pretty large when you are let down. Besides, all feelings of deceit have some element of humiliation in it.

In The Mutiny on Little Blue there is definitely not as much at stake as in Diplomacy; no strategic plans will be lost, but you still have the element of humiliation when the tiles are revealed and everyone can see that you were fooled. And of course the game forces you to trust someone, and someone might view the situation, when they find out that they have been lied to, as emotionally loaded.

Lots of people will have a problem with a game where "pure happiness" isn't the primary focus. But just as not all movies are made to make you laugh, some games are made to let you explore other emotions. And they might be interesting just because of that, and in some cases they may even enrich your life.

But to your question, if there is a problem with encouraging deviousness in games, I would say 'not really'. Most games - even family games - allow some degree of cruelty towards the other players; but as mentioned in the answer to your former question, my impression is that many people have particular problems when it comes to lying.

Tom:  Are there any mechanics that you particularly dislike in board games?

Kristian: I dislike very random mechanisms like those involving dice. It can be OK if the same dice throws apply to all the players, or if you to a large degree are able to influence the probabilities and risks. Great games exemplifying this could be "Settlers" or "Can't Stop". But in general, I try to avoid dice in my games.

Another mechanism, that is certainly not random, but that I still try to avoid, is open auctions. Auctions can make a game self-balancing, because in an ideal open auction, the players will pay what the item being auctioned is worth - nothing more, nothing less. For this reason, auctions can sometimes be needed, and they can come in very handy when designing a game. But I think open auctions tend to pull down the pace of a game, and they also tend to be a bit dull. I think it is better when you add color and variation to an auction by applying certain rules, like in "Modern Art or "Ra", or when you add speed by having once-around-the-table auctions, like in "Santiago" or again; "Ra" - even if such auctions are not as balancing as open auctions.

Oh, and I generally don't like it when a game allows, "Take that!" actions. It is not a mechanism specific property, but I thought I'd mention it anyway.

Tom:  You mention that you dislike random mechanisms, but doesn't Mutiny on the Little Blue have two (drawing the role discs, and flipping the ship movement tile)?

Kristian: Yes, it does. But Mutiny on Little Blue was never meant to be a heavy game, though.

And if I were to defend the two random mechanisms, I would say that the outcome of the second one (flipping the disc) applies equally to all the players. It is basically a substitute for drawing an island card. The different cards just make foundation for different negotiations between the captain and the crew members.  And when it comes to the first one, drawing the role discs, you most often have possibilities to do good no matter which role you draw. It will certainly help to be a good negotiator and liar, and mostly the
best player will win - not necessarily the one who drew the 'best roles'.

But again, this is meant to be a light game, and the purpose of the game simply is to have the players trick and cheat each other as much as possible. The luck elements in the game don't really change much to that.

Tom:  I've seen players do well without being deceitful at all.  Was that a goal when you designed the game?

Kristian: If you are no good at lying, you will probably be better off by being honest. And as some captains will prefer a secure low income than to risk a loss by going for a high income, you might come to an agreement with the captain even if you do not have the best role a given turn.  And, yes, the cards were intentionally designed to give the captain this dilemma between security and possible high profits. Of course the best liars could take advantage of this too, so generally you won't win the game by being honest.

Well, all players will be honest every now and then during a game, and some players actually have a bigger problem with being honest than with lying. When it comes to me, it sometimes seems that I am more credible when I am lying than when I am being honest.  It can be very frustrating not to be believed when you are, in fact, telling the truth. Honest players do at least not have that problem.

A good tip is to learn how to lie so that you believe it yourself. It certainly helps on your credibility.

Tom:  What would be your response to those who would say that a game shouldn't teach a skill like lying?

Kristian: Hmh. There are many much worse sins than lying. But, as I mentioned before, I think many people for some reason have a special issue with this one. However, there are many games that are teaching horrible ethics, and which I think could be much more damaging to a child than a game where you learn how to lie. Like the Barbie shopping spree game, for example. I think making such a game is really unethical. A sexist doll with absurd body proportions teaching children that it is OK to want to spend a lot of money on shopping.

Well, the fact that there are other worse games isn't really an argument for that it is OK to play The Mutiny on Little Blue. In Norway we have an expression that goes "Honesty without love is brutality". It rhymes in Norwegian, so it sounds a bit better here; but the point is that being honest is not always the most ethical thing to be. But I agree that in general lying isn't a good thing, so maybe they are right in that a game shouldn't teach this skill? Or maybe it can actually be healthy to see that ethics aren't black or white? Lying in itself isn't a bad thing, it is what you do with it that eventually makes it bad - and here it definitively isn't a bad thing, because you are just having fun with it in a game.

Tom:  What positive skills should games teach?

Kristian: Games could teach all sorts of skills: social skills, theatrical skills, logic, tactical and strategic planning, deduction, general mathematical skills and many, many more. I think board games as a medium might be especially well suited for teaching mathematical skills, but I still don't think there are any particular skills that a game should teach. Personally I love deduction games, though.

Tom:  What are some of your favorite deduction games?

Kristian: I remember that as a kid I was having a lot of fun with "Inkognito" and "Orient Express". Now my favorite deduction games are "Mystery of the Abbey", Sid Sackson's "Sleuth" and the public domain game "Eleusis".  And I was really excited about Stephan Riedel's "Old Town" from last year's Essen fair, which is a twist on the deduction genre. I could also mention EON's "Runes" (reprinted as "Buzzle"), which is a fun word deduction game. But there are still many old deduction games that I haven't got to try yet, like "Code 777". I believe that could become a favorite game once I get to try it.

Tom:  How important do you think the quality of components is to a game?  For example, I think your game would have been even better had the treasures been actual plastic pieces, but I'm sure costs played a part in that decision.

Kristian: I do think the quality of the components of a game matters, but I also think price matters. Plastic treasures in The Mutiny on Little Blue could have added to the enjoyment of the game; but it would have made the game more expensive, and the treasures would have been harder to hide. So I don't think it could be justified in this case. Great components can add a lot to my enjoyment of a game, and I certainly treasure all the good graphic artists out there. But on the other hand, I also think it is important that great components do not come to overshadow game mechanics. I think a game's ability to stimulate the intellect is more important than its aesthetics. There are games being played only for the looks of their components, and I do not think that is a good thing for the hobby. Good components should be reserved for the good games!

Tom:  Do you enjoy games with very low-quality components, such as Cheapass games?

Kristian: I haven't played that many Cheapass games, but I enjoyed those that I did play, like "Kill Doctor Lucky" and "Light Speed". I really like Cheapass games' concept of printing and selling games very cheap, and it certainly brings the focus over to the pure mechanics. Seeing many different mechanics can be inspiring for a game designer, so I probably should check out their games more. A problem is that in Norway, their games aren't really that cheap. And it is generally more tempting to play a game with good components, because, as said, it DOES add to the fun of playing a game.

When designing games, it is not that easy to find game testers willing to play games in an early proto type phase; but it is possible. The most important thing is to make the proto type efficient. When I was about 15, I made a game about a virus spreading. In the early prototype phase, the virus was represented by small paper markers. So we had this game map with lots of small paper markers on it, so we tried very carefully not to get the markers disturbed. After 45 minutes of play, a friend of mine sighed because of a bad move, and it blew half of the markers out of place. And my response, "Nooo!" blew the rest of them away. So that prototype surely wasn't very efficient. But it actually was a good game. Maybe I'll remake it some day.

Tom:  I know that wasn't funny then, but it sounds humorous now.  Do you have any other comic stories about games you've been in?

Kristian: Hmm. Well, every now and then I like to think back upon the last time I played Risk: It was a weekend several years ago, and I had these friends who really liked Risk. I didn't like the game at all, but they always bothered me with endless requests to play it. And one evening I finally gave in. After all, I was a guest at their house that weekend, and they were nice enough to let me sleep on a mattress on their floor, so I guess I felt a bit obligated. Anyway, as we were preparing the game, my friends were singing and shouting with joy over the fact that we were finally going to play their favorite. This was their moment! A starting player was randomly picked; it was me. I was dealt a fair mission (take over North America, Australia and one other continent), and I soon decided that I would try to go for the win the first round.  And so it went; with a little lucky dice throw here and a lucky dice throw there, my friends didn't even get close to having their first moves before the game was over. "Well, that was fun. Now let's play another game," I said as I was starting to pack the game back up. At least they haven't asked me to play Risk with them again since then.

Tom:  So are you working on any new game designs now?

Kristian: I am always working in parallel on several different game ideas on some level, but of course they do not all make it into finished games. At the moment, I am working on two games in particular that are either finished or nearly finished.

Tom:  Kristian, thanks for taking the time to talk to us!  Do you have any final statements for our readers?

Kristian: Thanks for the interview, Tom. And if any of your readers are ever going to Norway, I am always happy to play board games!

            In my "Interviews by an Optimist", I often ask the interviewees their opinions on the importance of theme in a game.  For some, it doesn't matter; but most feel that theme is extremely important to the success of a game, and I am in whole-hearted agreement.  I don't mind an abstract game with a good theme "pasted on", and would rather play it than a simple abstract game with no theme.  But every once in a while, a theme is actually detrimental to a game - actually subtracting from the fun factor of the game.

            Now, I'm pretty sure that I wouldn't have enjoyed Tuchulcha (daVinci Games, 2004 - Marco Donadoni), regardless of the theme.  The game is simply a Parcheesi game with some twists, and I despise Parcheesi.  But the theme of the game, the Etruscan Haruspexes, really threw off the entire game for me.  Terms like "haruspexes", "Velthumena", etc., really threw me off.  I had to read the rules three times to understand the game, and when explaining it, ignored the theme entirely.  This confusion, coupled with a mediocre game (in my opinion) gave me a rather low opinion of Tuchulcha.  It's a classic example of a mismatched theme actually ruining a game.

            Each player takes eight "haruspexes" (pawns) of their color and places them on a temple of a divinity.  Each temple is next to a specific spot on a purification path that winds in a circular manner around the board.  The goal of players is to get all of their pawns to the central spot of the board (the Velthumena altar).  One player starts the game, with play proceeding clockwise around the table.  On a turn, players roll two six-sided dice; if they roll doubles, they may roll an additional die.  Players must use the numbers rolled exactly, moving the same pawn more than once, or two different pawns.  Players move their pawns that many spaces and may pass over other pawns, if they can.  Pawns may have as many pawns of their own color on any space, but may NOT land a pawn of another player, unless the player can match the "spiritual power" of the pawn there.  Most spaces give a pawn a power of one, while some double the power, and a few spaces ("Mystical stones") triple the power.  Therefore, two pawns on a mystical stone have a total power of six.  Pawns on a mystical stone can pretty much never be captured, but a player must move them off the stone as soon as they can.  If a player lands pawn(s) equal in power to the pawn(s) on the stone, then the pawn(s) landed on are sent the forest of Tuchulcha (the dead zone).  A pawn that "kills" another pawn must stop moving.  Four spaces on the board (passages) cause a pawn that lands on them to immediately die.  When a pawn completely rounds the board, they enter into the central space (exact roll is NOT needed), and are safe and can no longer move.

            If a player wants to, they may "devote their pawns to Tuchulcha" - changing their role in the game.  Any player may do this (only one, however), and must sacrifice three of their pawns to the temple (they may come from the forest, the altar, or the player's temple).  From this point onward, the Tuchulcha player's pawns are invulnerable, do not have to stop when killing another pawn, and allow the player to roll four dice (using the best three.)  The Tuchulcha player's goal is to kill all remaining haruspexes of the other players.  If one player gets one more pawn into the center altar, the Tuchulcha player loses - they can only win if they kill all other players.

            If one player chooses the role of Tuchulcha, another player may then take on the role of Lasa Vecuvia.  This player must still have four pawns in play and takes four "seals" that are included with the game.  The player must attempt to land one of their pawns on one of the "passages", placing one of the seals on it, and discarding the pawn.  If the Lasa Vecuvia player manages to seal all four passages, then they win (even if the Tuchulcha player has lost).  Lasa Vecuvia pawns can only be killed by Tuchulcha pawns, and cannot kill other pawns (skipping them instead).

            When the four passages are sealed, or the Tuchulcha player kills all other pawns, or when an ordinary player gets all of their remaining pawns to the center, then the game is over.  In case of a tie, the player with the fewest dead haruspexes is the winner!  In a three-player game, the opposite side of the board is used (set up for three players), and no player can pick Lasa Vecuvia.  In a two-player game, the other two players are "neutral", and either player can move them.

1.)    Components:  The pieces of the game are of very good quality - the pawns are high quality wooden pawns (they look rather austere).  The seals are large gray wooden discs, and four nice wooden dice with rounded corners (my favorite) are included.  The board is quite beautiful, with nice pictures of a path throughout a forest and meadows.  The thing still looks rather abstract, but in a nice way, I suppose.  The different temples, passages, mystical stones, etc., are marked by mysterious symbols, and everything fits into a medium sized box (Carcassonne size), with some rather odd artwork.

2.)    Rules:  I've already complained about the rules to a degree in my opening statements.  There are a lot of examples and illustrations on the six-page fold out, which is good, because the rules themselves, with all the lengthy jargon, didn't make much sense to me.  A page of lore about the Etruscan Haruspexes is included (which I found the opposite of interesting.)  When I ignored the gobbledygook, the game was actually fairly easy to explain, although the two special roles were a little tricky for new players to understand.

3.)    Parcheesi:  The game is very similar to Parcheesi, although I'm sure game enthusiasts would gladly point out the differences.  But the game has the same feel for me, which is one of "bleach".  If you enjoy Parcheesi, than this might be the perfect game for you.  I'm not a big fan of moving pawns around a track, trying to land on other pawns.  That's been done to death (Trouble, Sorry!, etc.)

4.)    Tuchulcha:  I will state that the two roles included in the game are extremely interesting, although it's rarely in a player's best interest to take Tuchulcha.  Sure, it's a nice thing to do if you are losing the game by a wide margin, but because it's the most interesting and unique part of the game, it really should be more common.  I like the Lasa Vecuvia role, but it's only available in a four-player game; therefore, two or three player games are just not worth it to me.

5.)    Players:  As I just said, the game plays best with four players.  However, a two-player game has a smidgen of interest, because players can move the neutral pawns.  But I found that the game became just a simple, "make the best move now" type of game, and the fate of the game came down to the roll of a die.

6.)    Fun Factor:  I love rolling dice, and the excitement in a game of Can't Stop or Memoir' 44 can get intense - with everyone focusing on an exhilarating die roll.  The rolls in this game aren't the same and can actually border on tedium, sometimes.  When you NEVER get doubles or continually roll the numbers you don't need, the game can be quite annoying (as has happened to me).  Couple in a unique, uninspiring theme, and the game just did nothing for me.  I'd almost rather play Sorry! - it's a bit more exciting.

I hate to pan a game from daVinci, as most of their games I've really enjoyed.  But this one went over like a lead balloon for me, and multiple games did nothing to increase my interest.  Maybe it was the Parcheesi-type game play, which I abhor, or the terrible theme - but either way, it's not a game I can recommend unless you like "roll the dice and move your pawns" type games and want one with a different twist.  As for me, I want to play a game whose theme I can understand.

Tom Vasel

"Real men play board games."

            The title of Garden Competition (Toccata Games, 2004 - Ken Stevens) didn't send me into spasms of glee.  I've never cared too much about gardens - my mom forcing me to help her in hers when I was a child didn't help matters much.   And one of my game groups vehemently vetoed playing the game as soon as the title spilled forth from my lips.  "We ain't playing no game where we plant flowers" was one comment.  Fortunately, not everyone felt this way, and I was able to get the game played - something I'm glad for.

            Even though the theme wasn't one that a group of macho guys wanted to play, it worked - and it worked well.  Garden competition is an excellent game, having a bunch of fresh mechanics and various options - all in a simple format.  There's a small bit of deduction, a bit of tile laying, and very little downtime.  I'm not sure what the best strategies for the game are yet, and that's a good thing - it means the game has staying power.  The game actually does feel like a garden competition, and that may appeal to many people (perhaps more women would like this game than men?)

            Each player is given a player board, with a grid of thirty-four squares on it divided up into three areas:  six squares that get no sun, ten squares that get partial sun, and the rest that get full sun.  "Next-door" neighbor boards are placed so that one is between every two players.  Each of these boards has a smaller grid (sixteen squares) just like player boards, as well as spaces for three flower tiles.   A "Neighbors Down the Street" board is placed in the middle of the board, with three more neighbors' yards (although these simply have spaces for three flower tiles.)  All neighbors have a box showing two shaking hands ("introduction" box), and a sign showing an amount of money ($3-$5).  Stacks of flower tokens, each one of five different colors (red, white, blue, purple, or yellow), are placed near the board  - some with their "seed" side face up, and those without a "seed" side flower side up.  The flower tokens are either one square large, two squares large, or four squares large.  Each player receives a pile of wooden cubes in their color, placing one in the "introduction" box of the next-door neighbor to their left.  Flowers are also randomly placed in each neighbors' garden, and money tokens equal to the number shown on the sign are placed on the sign.  The rest of the money, as well as a pile of weed tokens, are placed in the bank.  A turn board with a track of twelve spaces is placed in the middle of the board, and a marker is placed on its first space.  A pile of judge cards is sorted into two stacks: flowers and colors.  Two color cards and 7-11 flower cards (depending on number of players) are shuffled to form the deck used for the game (the others are removed).  Each player is dealt one judge card, which they can look at, one card is placed between every two players, which only they can look at, and the remaining three are placed next to the Turn Board.  The second youngest player then starts the first of twelve rounds.

            In a round, any special icons in the turn order space have their action completed, as well as any spreading of weeds (only rounds 7-12).  Then, starting with the first player, each player can choose two actions (may pick the same one twice) from the following:

-         Introduce:  A player may "introduce" themselves to any neighbor on the table by placing one of their cubes on the introduction box of that neighbor.

-         Work:  A player may "work" for a neighbor that they've been introduced to.  They may either take the money placed on the sign for themselves, or work for "free" - removing the money and placing it in the bank, while placing a cube under the sign the money was on (a "Favor" cube).

-         Shop:  A player may buy a seed, flower, or mulch from the nursery.  Seeded flowers cost only $1, but are placed in a player's garden flower side up.  Flowers cost $3 - $5, depending on their size.  A player must place the flower in their garden in the appropriate area (shade, partial shade, sun) in their garden, but only if they have room.  Mulch costs the same as flowers, and is only bought to block weeds (later in the game).

-         Weed:  A player may remove one weed from their own garden, or remove one from a neighbor they've introduced themselves to, gaining a Favor cube in the process.

-         Schmooze:  A player may pay $2 to the bank to secretly look at one of the judge cards on the table.

Different icons on the turn table cause an event that takes place before the turn.

-         On turns 6, 8, and 10, the "judge speaks" - which means that one of the three judge cards in the middle is flipped over.

-         On turns 5, 8, and 11, each neighbor gives one of their flowers to the player with the most favor cubes on that neighbor's house.  Ties are broken in a set way - basically by using the favor cubes on other houses.  The winning player at each neighbors' house, if any, takes a flower of their choice and plants it in their garden.  All favor cubes are then removed, returned to the players.

-         On turn seven, all the seed flowers in the "bank" are turned over to their flower side, increasing their price.

-         On turns seven and nine, players place a weed in one of their next-door neighbor's gardens.  There are three different types of weed - one for each type of sunlight.  Weeds, whose size are one square, are placed on their "seed" side up.  On future turns, all weeds spread, placing an identical weed in both adjacent gardens, then being flipped to their dormant side.  The only way to stop weeds from spreading is if a garden doesn't have any room for that particular weed.

At the end of each turn, all money is replaced on the signs of the neighbors, and the next person clockwise is the first player.  After the twelfth round, all the judge cards are revealed, and each player scores their garden.  Each flower depicted on one of the judge cards is worth two points for the player if that player has one in their garden (multiple flowers garner no more points).  Also, players receive one point for each DIFFERENT flower they have of the two colors on the remaining two judge cards.  Finally, players subtract one point for each weed in their own garden.  The player with the highest score is the winner!

Some comments on the game...

1.)    Components:  Again, I'm impressed with the quality of the bits in Garden Competition, as Toccata Games are basically home made.  Small poker chips are used for money, and the wooden player cubes are of high quality and bright colors.  The cards and flower and weed tokens, while having obviously having computer-printed graphics on them, are of good quality; and the flower artwork does help the theme.  Everything fits well in a sturdy box, and the entire product looks good - down to the laminated player boards.

2.)    Rules:  Ken did a good job when writing the eight-page rulebook - complete with an illustration on how to set up the game.  I only had one quibble (the exact use of Mulch), which he mentioned that he'd fix in the next edition of the rules.  The game is extremely simple to teach, because the theme fits the game so well.  The game can almost be taught while playing, and new players can mimic experienced players when they're not sure just what to do.

3.)    Theme:  There aren't many games with flowers as theme, probably because traditionally most gamers have been men, and many men don't care for the theme.  However, with the growth of the female board game market, this is probably one that many will enjoy; and the mechanics certainly go well with it.  I liked how players had to introduce themselves to neighbors before they could start getting favors, how the different flowers gardens looked, and how the weeds spread.  But I can see how the theme might be a turn off to some.  I actually got into it when playing and thought the mechanics of the game were superb.

4.)    Weeds:  The weeds are a very interesting part of the game.  Players really should go out of their way to weed them, because otherwise the weeds spread like wild fire and rip through gardens at a tremendous speed.  In one game I played, the weeds were ignored, and they covered all the gardens, keeping final scores rather low.  In the other game, players weeded the initial weeds out quickly, keeping them under control.  But an action a player spends weeding, might be better used somewhere else.  Players can also pick weeds for areas of their garden that they already have filled, thus insuring that the weed won't harm them; and they can ignore it.  It's a clever mechanic, and interesting to watch develop.

5.)    Deduction:  The game isn't a deduction game per se, but players are trying to make sure that they get the correct flowers in their garden.  Should a player buy the large size flower - taking up more room in their garden, or buy a smaller one, one they KNOW is needed?  Initially, players know six of the total judge cards, but must deduce the rest from what their opponents do.  Is a player planting that Cosmos because they know it's one of the needed flowers, or simply because it's a white flower?  A little bluffing is allowed (although not too much - players simply don't have enough time to really waste on flowers they don't need.)  Although to protect myself from weeds, I have bought flowers I didn't need just to fill the garden up.

6.)    Strategy:  Because players have only two actions per turn, down time in the game is minimal.  Yet players have a significant amount of choices to make.  Which neighbors should they introduce themselves to?  Should they work for free, getting the favor, or get the much-needed money?  What flowers should they buy?  As simple as the game may seem, I really think that it's an elegant design, allowing players to try out a lot of different options.  Some strategy tips are listed in the rulebook, and all the games I've played have turned out differently with players trying out different tactical moves.  The game feels like it could have been one of the Alea Big Box series (just slightly lighter).

7.)    Fun Factor:  Because the theme is strong, choices are simple but varied, and players are immersed in the game - it's a lot of fun.  Yes, some grumbled about the joys of planting flowers, but most people who played the game enjoyed it.  Watching the weeds spread (as long as it's not your own yard) can be fun, and seeing how many correct flowers you have in your garden at game end can be quite satisfying.

I highly recommend Garden Competition; it's a solid game design, and one that I feel will sadly be overlooked because it's an independent design.  If you've been looking for a game with a flower garden theme, this is a tremendous one, and doesn't feel like it's merely a theme pasted on some abstract mechanics.  And if you don't like flowers or gardens, I still highly recommend the game.  It's a lot of fun and easy to understand and play, yet with a wide range of options.  It'd be nice to see a large company pick this game up, but for now, one only needs to go to www.toccatagames.com to snag a copy.   It's certainly worth it!

Tom Vasel

"Real men play board games."

Interviews by an Optimist # 25 - Jerry Taylor

Jerry says this about himself...

"I am 41 years old and live in Alexandria, Virginia.  My "day job" is director of natural resource studies at the Cato Institute in Washington, DC (http://www.cato.org/people/taylor.html).  In my free time, I enjoy my two-year old son, my lovely wife, gourmet cooking, skiing, chess, and, of course, wargames.
 

I've been gaming since the mid-1970s.  In the early years, Avalon Hill classics were my passion.  I then had a brief fling with RPGs and then gave up on gaming altogether from the mid-1980s through the early 1990s.

Columbia Games' block designs brought me back.  Eventually, I had a chance to meet CG's president, Tom Dalgliesh at a convention; and in the course of conversation, I suggested that the events depicted in the movie "Braveheart" would make a great game.  "Sure they would - why don't you design it?" he asked.  I think he was just trying to get rid of me, but from 1996 through 2002, that's exactly what I did.  The result was "Hammer of the Scots," the first game I ever designed.  The second game in that line - "Crusader Rex," which depicts the 3rd Crusade featuring Richard the Lionheart versus
Saladin - will be out in a matter of months.

Tom:  Do you think that block designs are the best type of system for war games, and why or why not?

Jerry: It depends upon the wargame: form must follow function.  Blocks are very good at representing "the fog of war" and allow for an elegant means of tracking incremental unit losses.  They are also more attractive than counters in my opinion, but that is of course subjective.  There are, however, various ways that the same "fog of war" can be achieved with counters, and step-reduction with counters is also common enough.

Blocks lose most of their utility when a LOT of units are called for (there's only so much wood you can put into a game), when the fog-of-war is minimal, and when you are designing a multi-player game (figuring out a way to slant blocks four or more ways on a board is awful tough).

But "block games" have traditionally been about more than the wood.  "Block games" have also tended to reflect a rather particular design philosophy - one that emphasizes elegant game mechanisms, easy to digest rules, and exciting play while seriously attempting to put the player in the same shoes as his historical counterpart.  You can do all these things with counters, of course, but they are central to almost every block game design of which I am aware.  They are only occasionally central to the design of modern
counter-based games.

Tom:  If you were to list three things that must be present in a good wargame, what would you say?

Jerry: It's a matter of taste and personal preference.  For me, a good wargame must be fun to play, it must depict a dramatic struggle, it must be rich in tactical and/or strategic decision making, it should be reasonably balanced, it must be relatively easy to play without going to night-school to learn the rules, and it must do a decent job reflecting the real challenges faced by your historical counterpart.  I know you asked for just three things, but those six things must be present for me to be interested in playing the game.  All are equally important in my book.

Tom:  Can a good simulation be a good game, or vice versa?   Are there wargames that you feel do too good of a job simulating, that they just aren't fun any more?

Jerry: Sure, a good simulation can be a good game.  But the key question is what are you simulating?  Many wargames represent concerted efforts to model in detail this or that aspect of warfare.  While those models may or may not be accurate (frankly, I'm skeptical that even the most detailed gaming model is particularly realistic), they often have little to do with simulating what you, as your historical counterpart, had to decide on the battlefield, or what you, as your historical commander, were really responsible for.  A lot
of games, for instance, "telescope" the player through various levels of the chain of command - which can be fun, no doubt - but have nothing to do with the decisions faced by your historical counterpart.

The upshot of all this is that some games are concerned with presenting realistic models of this or that aspect of battle (artillery doctrine, weapons penetration, whatever) while other games are concerned with presenting a plausible simulation of what it might have been like to be your historical counterpart on the battlefield with all of the attendant
uncertainty, fog of war, reliance upon the chain of command (perhaps competent, perhaps incompetent), and so forth.

Tom:  So you have no problem with drastic changes in history occurring in a war game?

Jerry: I would have a problem if a game allowed players to do things their counterparts couldn't possibly hope to do historically.  I would also have a problem if a game's mechanics failed to reflect in some reasonable manner the fundamental aspects of the things they are hoping to model.  But I have no problem whatsoever with a game that allows "changes in history."  After all, if ever a strategic level WW2 game were designed to channel players into the historical decisions of their counterparts and forced an historical resolution to those decisions, what would be the point of playing the game?  You already know who's going to win, and how they're going to do it.  Heck, just read a book!

Tom:  What about things that are possible, but something that one would never
have chosen to do?  Like the Americans siding with Germany against the British in World War 2...

Jerry: Well, that would certainly fall under the category of me having a problem with a game that allowed players to do things their historical counterparts "couldn't possibly hope to do historically," wouldn't it?  I mean, even if FDR got drunk one night and wanted to declare war on the French and English right out of the blue, it's not as if he could get away with it politically, now could he?  Now, if we are happy to accept wildly implausible alternative histories (like those provided in Totaller Krieg to randomize the alliances at the start of the game), that's OK as long as the game is advertised as an exercise in "what if" scenarios.  And I think that can be a lot of fun.  But sitting the American player down in a game of something like AH's "Third Reich" and telling him he can choose to join either the Axis or the Allies is simply ridiculous.

Here's a better example of what I mean regarding the tension between strictly modeling historical events and producing a good game (as far as how I personally define a "good game" that is).  It comes right out of a design quandary I faced when working on "Crusader Rex."

During the 3rd Crusade, Emperor Frederick Barbarossa led a large army of Germans across Europe in order to do battle with Saladin.  It stayed together for the most part until it reached an area north of Tarsus in southern Turkey.  There, Frederick drowned while crossing a river, and the army more or less disintegrated.

So what do you do as a game designer?  The German army did not show up historically, so if you are going to strictly "model" the 3rd Crusade, you don't include that army in your force pool.  But on the other hand, Saladin was so fearful of the approaching German army that he essentially wasted 18 months preparing for their arrival when he could otherwise have perhaps finished off the last of the Frankish garrisons along the coast at Tyre and Tripoli.

So if you take the Germans out of the force pool, you aren't necessarily creating a realistic simulation of the 3rd Crusades because you, as the Saracen general, will go into the game KNOWING that the Germans won't show up and KNOWING that you will have a free hand in Palestine that your historical counterpart - Saladin - did not believe he necessarily had.

OK, so let's assume that we're persuaded to include the Germans for the overall sake of the simulation even with the understanding that we're "violating history" in a narrow sense by putting them into the game.  We're going to want their entry to be uncertain in order to reflect the historical situation.  But how much flexibility should we include? From what I can tell through my research, Barbarossa's army was so large and so capable that had it showed up en masse (or, in other words, had Frederick not drowned in
southern Turkey), it would arguably have been capable of driving Saladin out of Palestine.

But do we really want some random die roll (or its equivalent) to either deliver the Germans or not?  The Christians will have a much easier time of it if they "win" that German entry roll but be against the ropes if they miss it.  Personally, I'm not inclined to play a game where the winner will be substantially determined by some random event outside the influence of either player.

So in "Crusader Rex," I made German entry likely but by no means a given, I made it random, and I toned-down Barbarossa's army so that it's probably not capable of single-handedly winning the war.  I also designed "Crusader Rex" so that, if the Germans show up, there's less of a chance that the French or English will show up.  None of these decisions was "historical" in a narrowly construed sense.  But all of them are very arguably realistic from a broader perspective.  That is, we can't put you in the shoes of your historical counterpart and have you face the uncertainties and decisions he had to face if we DON'T violate the historical A-B-Cs of what actually happened.

Tom:  Besides your own games, what other war games best portray this same feeling?

Jerry: Well, all of games that Columbia Games has in the catalogue that I did not design are exactly what I'm shooting for in a game.  There are also a number of traditional "hex & counter" games that manage it as well, although it's been so long since I've played them that I hesitate to name titles with authority.  The card-driven games that recently hit the market like "Swords of Rome," "We the People," and "Hannibal" are in the ballpark.  I also like the system pioneered in GMT's "Blue vs. Gray."

Tom:  Well, how about some games that do NOT "fit the bill", so to speak?

Jerry: I'd rather not single out games for particular criticism.  Suffice it so say that there are a large number of games out there that advertise themselves as being the most realistic thing to hit the block in ages but, when you think about it, are anything but.  They are reality detailed modeling exercises that may or may not successfully model what they set out to model but fall very short as reasonable simulations of command.

Tom:  What do you think about the wargame market as a whole?  Are computer games hurting the hobby?

Jerry: I'm not sure - I design games; I don't market them.  My sense is that wargaming competes with a huge range of entertainment mediums - computer games, Playstation-type games, Euro games, traditional board games, sports activities, Texas Hold 'Em, billiards, bowling - you name it.  All I can say is that the wargaming market is only a fraction of what it once was.  Isolating which of the many competitive alternatives to wargaming is most responsible for this is hard to say.

Wargamers shouldn't overly obsess about this much-ballyhooed decline of their hobby, however.  With the internet, it's easier than ever before to find opponents - and even play your favorite boardgame over the web.  Game designs today are far better than they ever have been in the past.  There's a thriving convention circuit.  There's a plethora of good games to choose from.  Publication rates continue to run strong.  So what's not to like?

Tom:  You mentioned the internet as a good place for wargamers to meet together.  What are the best sites for such a thing?

Jerry: BGG and Consimworld!

Tom:  Interesting response.  Many wargamer friends I have tend to look down on BGG, scoffing at its war game information as compared to ConsimWorld.  Your thoughts on this?

Jerry: Some wargamers look down at Euros - but from my experience, most don't - they play them as well.  The bottom line is that there's a heck of a lot of traffic here at BGG - probably even more wargamer traffic than at ConsimWorld.  The latter is the redoubt of the grognards.  The former is the more general clubhouse.  Tastes and preferences are different, of course, but one should fish where the fish is.

Tom:  Are there any good print magazines, etc., that wargamers who are interested can seek out?

Jerry: I don't read many.  Paper Wars is a good mag for reviews, but with the internet, review mags are slowly becoming obsolete.

Tom:  Are you currently working on any new war games?

Jerry: The beginning of any new wargame design project is research.  Towards that end, I am reading-up on the 100 Years War.  I'd like to make that my next game and use the system developed for "Crusader Rex," but that will depend upon whether I think there would be a good game somewhere in those long-ago events featuring Edward IV ("The Black Prince"), Henry V, and Joan of Arc.  I suspect so, but it's unclear.  The main feature of those campaigns were relatively small English armies terrorizing the countryside in an attempt to shake support for the French crown and French armies sitting around hoping they could wait the English out.  Hard to make a fun game out of that.

Another game I've been researching of late surrounds the Guadalcanal campaign.  A proper game would have to incorporate air, land, and sea elements in nearly equal proportions, but doing so without doing violence to the scale involved is difficult.  Another possible way of getting at this campaign would be to "zoom out" a bit and do a game on the entire New Guinea / Solomons / Bismark Islands campaign in the South Pacific, which would start with the Japanese drive on Port Moresby, the battle of the Coral Sea, Guadalcanal, and the final U.S. drive to isolate Raubul.

I'm also very interested in a new series of games where each player commands the equivalent of a WW2 division.  Blocks would be company sized. Individual games in that series would feature one division of interest (for instance, "Old Breed" - the 1st Marine Division, or "Hell on Wheels," the U.S. 2nd Armored Division) and allow multiple scenarios to fight that division throughout the war.  The series would be based on a simplified version of Victory Games' old "Panzer Command" system, which was a brilliant design but too complex and detailed for my tastes now, and would ultimately
involve U.S., German, Russian, and British divisional games.

Finally, the War of the Roses is probably the "holy grail" for the medieval system we've developed in HotS and CR.  At some point, I'll definitely do that.  The order in which I tackle these projects depends entirely upon what I discover in my research - the campaigns, which would seem to make the best games, will go first.

Tom:  For someone who is new to wargaming - say someone who has only ever played games on the level of Axis and Allies, with what war games would you recommend them to start?

Jerry: Hammer of the Scots of course!  That was my intent when I designed the game - to create a game that was a rich and challenging game experience that would appeal to both old-time wargamers and newcomers alike.

Tom:  And that is what many people on the 'net say.  Nice to hear that you agree with them!  What games introduced you to wargaming?

Jerry: I first played AH's Tactics II.  Then Stalingrad.  And then, very quickly, PanzerBlitz, Anzio, Wooden Ships & Iron Men, 3rd Reich, Diplomacy, Luftwaffe, PanzerLeader, Blitzkreig, Russian Campaign and then - most everything out there.  It didn't take me long after my first wargame to get hooked.

Tom:  Do you still think some of those original games that you've played, such as Tactics II, are still worth playing today?  Or have they grown outdated with time?

Jerry: No, most of those old games are hardly worth playing anymore.  Compared with today's games, they are unrealistic and poorly designed.  In almost every case, you can find a modern game on the same topic that will do a much, much better job with the subject.

Tom:  What is the role of dice (no pun intended) in a wargame?  Or in other words, how much should luck play a factor?

Jerry: It's a randomizer, which I generally favor, given how unpredictable combat can be as a general rule.  But then again, my favorite board game is Chess, so one can play a game without randomized combat and still have a great time.

In the games I've designed, I'm depicting medieval warfare, which was very, very unpredictable.  To put the player in the shoes of his historical counterpart, you have to make combat a rather bloody, uncertain thing.  Too much randomization, however, can bother many players, so I've had to strike a balance - as much randomization as I think players can stand.  Luckily, the more randomization you have in a game, the more the luck factor tends to even out.

But a lot of wargamers are control freaks, who are under the illusion that the guy with the "best plan" should and could win every campaign.  And this brings me back to a point I made earlier - modeling systems so that players can, with study, fine-tune their battle plans and maximize their chances of success are, IMO, fundamentally unrealistic.  The players simply know too much going in and too much about what's going on.

Tom:  Many people are in areas where they cannot find others who have the same interests as them when it comes to wargames.  What advice would you have for these folk?

Jerry: There are plenty of software programs out there that allow you to play your favorite boardgames over the internet.  Most popular wargames will usually already have a module built for it, so you can start right up and play without the laborious task of creating your own custom module.  Aide de Camp II, Cyberboard, and Vassal are the most popular.  Most allow PBEM, but some (like Vassal) allow live play.  ACTS and Above the Fields are also excellent programs for playing "Hammer of the Scots."  Some cost money, but many are free.

Tom:  What about conventions?  Are there any good ones you would recommend for wargamers?

Jerry: The best wargame convention is probably the World Boardgaming Championships
in Baltimore, MD.  But there are plenty of regional and game specialty conventions that are very good.  You'll find all you need to know about them at ConsimWorld.

Tom:  From your opening biography, you indicate that Hammer of the Scots, arguably your most popular game, took six years to design.  Can you tell us a little about the design process for that game?

Jerry: In 1995 (I think) I found myself at the Origins Convention and made a point of meeting Tom Dalgliesh, president of Columbia Games, at the CG booth. In the course of our conversation, I mentioned that the events surrounding the movie "Braveheart" would make an excellent block game. He agreed, but responded that there are lots of good ideas for games out there but not enough time to produce them all. "Why don't you design it?" he asked. Well, I had never designed a game in my life, but Tom said, "Look, just give it a shot, and I'll be happy to look it over once you are ready."

In reality, I think he was just trying to get rid me! But I decided to give it a try and, four years later, I had a game to show him. I took HotS to various conventions for playtesting and publicity, and finally Tom agreed to sign a contract for it. It sat around CG's offices for about a year, however, until they decided to try to get it out the door in the summer of 2002.

"Hammer" changed a lot from the time I submitted it, however, to the time is was published. It was originally a rather involved wargame with about 24 pages of rules and all sorts of involved mechanisms. I thought it worked well and was rather historically accurate, but Tom said, "Nobody would want to play this - it takes too long and is too complicated." So he took the game, edited out a lot, and streamlined the rest and - that's the product that it is today.

To give you an idea of what it was like prior to CG's changes, I shall quote from the opening paragraph of a review of "Hammer of the Scots," that was published in "Perfidious Albion," a fanzine published by Charles Vasey, a rather prominent game designer / developer / major domo in the industry:  "I was fortunate to have play-tested the original version of this game which had a great deal of interesting medieval detail. Armies came and went to the beat of a different drummer in a very medieval fashion. Seldom has the pre-industrial State been so neatly summarized. However, Columbia Games in their infinite wisdom decided it was too complex and too clunky. They have
instead reduced it in size and improved the simplicity of its game play. The result is however surprisingly historical in feel if not always in producing a believable progression of events. Columbia has begun to resemble the old Avalon Hill where game play and history resided in cohabitation. Jerry Taylor (the designer) was, I think, very worried about this process but the game has emerged with much intact, and a base upon which those who prefer complexity or more detail can build but accessible to the many who do not."

Tom:  It mentions that you were very worried about the final design process.  Now that you're more experienced, is the design process quite so drastic?

Jerry: No.  "Crusader Rex" has been much smoother going.  I learned a lot in the course of producing "Hammer."

Tom:  With the demise of Avalon Hill, many other companies sprang up to fill in the gap.  What company's wargames do you think are doing the best to follow the AH legacy?

Jerry: Following AH's legacy may not be the smartest thing - they did go under, after all, and made some horrific business decisions (passing on Magic, for instance, and showing zero interest in D&D when they probably could have had the franchise if they really wanted it).

GMT now seems to dominate the market in about the same manner that AH once did, but they have a personality all their own.  Like AH, however, they publish a wide range of games with all sorts of different styles.  As far as their games are concerned vs. AH's games, you'd have to talk to someone who's played more of GMT's catalogue than I have.

Tom:  What about you as a designer?  Do you work exclusively with Columbia, or are there other companies you'll design for?

Jerry: Well, so far I've worked exclusively with Columbia.  I have nothing against other game companies, though - many of which appear open about publishing block games now.  CG has done a good job developing my designs so far and, as long as that remains the case, I don't see any reason to change.

Tom:  What would be your response to war gamers who don't like the block game mechanics - saying that the fog of war is unnecessary to games?

Jerry: Fog of war is certainly more central to the affairs of some battles than they are in others.  Much depends upon scale.  Reading military history, however, demonstrates to me that your average wargame allows the player WAY too much information of all kinds (even letting him know the power of his OWN units is usually too much!).

But these are just games, after all, and people play them for different reasons.  BGG types strike me as people who play games because they want to have some fun.  A number of wargamers, on the other hand, play games because they think that doing so allows them to learn something about history.  If you are in the former camp and think that fog-of-war ala blocks is not as fun as having perfect knowledge, then who am I go argue with you?  Tastes are subjective.  If you are in the latter camp and think that fog-of-war ala blocks gets in the way of learning what you want to learn about history, then again, who am I to argue what you should or should not want to learn? If you are a competitive player in either camp who can't stand the possibility that random luck can make the guy who SHOULD win actually LOSE, then who am I to argue that you should play games with a lot of randomness?

My only beef is that sometimes wargamers can cop an attitude when looking at a game that doesn't try to model activity at some insane level of detail and conclude that, because it does not, it is not a realistic game.  That's nonsense.  In fact - as a general rule - the LESS detail in wargames, the more realistic they are if by "realism" you mean realistically putting you in the shoes of your historical counterpart.

Tom:  Jerry, thanks so much for taking the time to do this interview!  Any final words for our readers?

Jerry: Sure - go to the Columbia Games website and pre-order Crusader Rex, now, this very minute, and get a 10% discount with a full money-back guarantee.  How's that?

Tom Vasel

April, 2005

"Real men play board games."

Hi David,


It's not a gameshop per se, but Checkmate game cafe
off of the Kyungsung University/Pukyoung University
subway stop used to carry extra games for sale when I
was living in Busan. The guys who own it are gaming
fanatics and always order anything I needed that they
didn't have in stock too.

Check out their website at www.checkmate.co.kr or stop
by the shop. Get off the subway, head past the
Mcdonalds, it's two streets down on the right. 5th
floor on top of a fancy coffee shop.



Best,


Mark Strecker


>
> Hi everyone,
>
> I know that B and M board game shops are pretty much
> non-existent in
> Korea but thought I'd take a chance and ask here.
>
> Thanks.
>
> cheers,
>
> david
>
>

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

Interviews by an Optimist # 23 - Lawrence Whalen

Larry got his start in the gaming industry 22 years ago when he
acquired The GameKeeper store in Providence, RI. Over the years he has
worked with a number of game companies in development and design,
primarily in the wargaming industry. In 2001 Larry entered the
publishing business when he co-founded the d20 publishing company
MonkeyGod Enterprises. Two years later he branched out when he
persuaded his partner to establish the board game company Face 2 Face
Games. This new growing company is currently his main focus.

Tom:  Larry, can you tell us how Face 2 Face Games came into being?

Larry: My entry into the publishing world began in 2001 with the D20
company MonkeyGod Enterprises. In 2003 after playing Kohle, Kies &
Knete for the 100th time, I wondered why this great game had never
been published in English and resolved to do so. I first attempted to
contact Sid Sackson directly. Unfortunately at the time he was very
ill, so instead I talked with Mrs. Sackson. The Sackson's liked how we
wanted to handle things and eventually offered us the rights to  K,K &
K, which is now titled I'm the Boss! Our initial thought was to add
I'm the Boss to the MonkeyGod line but after further consideration we
chose instead to start a new company, Face 2 Face Games. Under this
banner we would publish all card and board games. A dwindling D20
market resulted in the eventual demise of the older company, so today
I am concentrating solely on the board and card game market.

Tom:  Initially, it seemed as if the goal of Face 2 Face games was to
reprint Sid Sackson's games.  Has this changed?

Larry: Appearances can be deceiving. The goal was never just to
reprint Sid Sackson games, but rather to print good games be they
original or a reprint. As a new company you do not want to take big
chances, so we focused on Sackson games for our first year of
business. In the future we will have a nice mixture of new and old
games.

Tom:  Do you have the license for all the Sid Sackson games?  And what
Sackson games might we see from Face 2 Face in the future?

Larry: No, we do not have the license for all the Sackson games. As to
what Sackson games you might see in the future, Metropolis is the next
one in line. Following that will be Can't Stop. We are always looking
for input as to which Sackson Games people would most like to see
reprinted.

Tom:  What else can you tell us about upcoming games from Face 2 Face games?

Larry: The updated version of Rheinlander is at long last off to the
printer. This is a big box game with wooden bits and sculpted Dukes.
Following that shortly will be Wizard's Brew. This is the old Das
Amulett with some additions and improvements, and it looks great. I
think people will be very pleased with this version. Then Winner's
Circle is next up, and I can't wait for this one. With Reiner Knizia's
input we have made some improvements to the appearance and play of the
old Royal Turf game. Following those we will have a few children's
games from Knizia (English versions of Honeybears and Schatz der
Drachen) and Richard Borg as well as a nice middleweight Knizia
original called Genesis. And of course there are more projects we are
looking at, but are not yet at liberty to discuss. I think everyone
will be pleased with what is on the horizon.

Tom:  Can you elaborate on the changes to Winner's Circle at all?

Larry: One of the major changes is the appearance. There is now a full
size board with 3 more spaces, and there are full sculpts for the
horses. The rules also have changed to reflect 28 horses with
different names for each horse. In addition, the gates are color coded
rather than the horses.  This allows horses with similar running
styles to race against each other.  The Royal Turf rules have been
included as a variant for those who still want to play the old
version.

Tom:  As a game company, you must have hundreds of game submissions.
How do you pick which ones to publish?

Larry: First we blindfold Dave, then point him at the dartboard. Just
kidding. When we receive prototypes we first try to play them
ourselves to see if it is a game we would consider for our line.
Following that we then send the game out to various playtest groups
and ask for their feedback on a 1-10 scale and their reasons. Once we
have that we look at it again to see if we have missed anything.

One example is Ice Cream, on initial plays I wasn't that excited by
it. We considered it for the children's market, so I brought in three
different groups of children ranging from 6-10. They loved it. It was
particularly harsh on one group's moms as the children leaving kept
asking for a copy of Ice Cream, and we didn't have one there to give
them yet. I guess what I am trying to say is that we try to playtest
the games with the group we think will like the game after the first
round. If it makes the cut there, it goes into production if not it is
rejected. Believe me; we have a large pile of those.

Tom:  How many submissions do you get?  Do you have time to look them all over?

Larry: I don't know how many exactly we get, but it is a fair amount.
We ask anyone sending us a submission to first send us an RTF of their
rules to see if we think it will fit into the line. If we think it has
promise, then we ask them to send us a prototype though we do tell
them it could be a little while before we get back to them. We want to
be thorough during playtesting.

Tom:  Do certain authors get in easier?  For example, if my last name
was Knizia, would you want to playtest the game without even glancing
at the rules?

Larry:  It does not matter who the designer is - we look at the rules
first. If we do not see any potential or if the game does not fit our
line, we do not go on to playtesting. We feel the designers prefer
this as it allows them to go on to other potentially interested
companies. However, in many cases we are unsure and playtest the game
to be on the safe side. In practice this policy has not favored the
established designers over the newcomers.

Tom:  What advice would you give to a potential designer?

Larry: Playtest your game with groups other then your friends and
family! We often get proposals for this great game; everybody who has
tried it loves it. Then we find out their family and friends were the
only playtesters.  Usually such biased opinions are not enough
feedback on a game. It very well might be good; but generally it is
not, and the potential designer is disappointed.  I would also tell
them to play other successful designers' games. See what works, and
what doesn't work. This may give them some new ideas and provide them
a little direction.

Tom:  How long does it usually take for a game to go from the
playtesting stage from your company to the finished product on the
shelf?

Larry: The time varies significantly depending on many factors.
Playtesting can take some time, and sometimes reveals problems that
have to be addressed.  After a game has been accepted, it goes into
the queue - we are currently looking at games for 2006. Eventually
artwork has to be commissioned, and finished. Translations must be
gotten for the games being printed in different languages and layout,
depending on the complexity, can also take some time. Following this
is tooling, printing, and then shipping. The entire process can take
over a year, although sometimes a really outstanding game might be
rushed - our quickest turnaround was a mere 4 months.

Tom:  What are the disadvantages and advantages to being an American
game publisher?

Larry: One advantage is we are in a position to take advantage of the
emerging markets in the US, Japan, and Korea. Euro style boardgames
are only now truly being discovered here in the world's largest
market.

One of the major disadvantages is the difficulties an American
publisher faces when trying to break into the already established
European markets.

Tom:  What about components, game boards, etc.?  Do you find it
difficult to keep on par with the increasing quality of "bits" that
many companies are producing?

Larry: This area is a problem. You have to constantly look at each
game for how you can best present it. This includes everything from
the box, insert, right up to the components. This is an area we
consider carefully prior to a game's production because it can lead to
significant price increases. You have to weigh the benefits of that
neat piece versus the increase in cost - it is a tough balance. On top
of that, we must constantly monitor what is
being produced at the print shops. Printers cutting corners is one of
the primary causes of production delays. We will not accept the games
until they are right.

Tom:  Do you feel pressure from other companies, as it seems there is
a race today to produce the best components?

Larry: There is no doubt that we look at what other companies are
doing for components. Still, we do not use them for a measure. We look
at each game individually and try to figure out what it should have
for components. Then we try and produce it using that as our measure.

Tom:  I've really been impressed with how you've gotten into many
markets, including Japan and Korea.  Just how well do your games do
over in the Far East?

Larry: It has really varied depending on the title. Some games have
been received very well others not so well. We are still working on
developing that market and will continue to include translations in
all our games.

Tom:  What are the best and worst parts about running a board game company?

Larry: This is a tough question. I think the best part is all the
great gamers and designers you get to meet. It is a real joy to meet
people with similar interests who are both friendly and helpful. Then
there are the great designs you get presented, although it is always a
tough decision which ones to select and then how best to make them.

The worst part occurs after you have finished putting everything
together on a game, and then during production they don't match your
specs or change something without asking. Also, when the game finally
comes out, you can always find some fault. People think the reviewers
are harsh - you should see how we view our final product. We are
always seeing ways to improve on them and just can't ever be
satisfied.

Tom:  Is it more difficult to work with a reprint (like I'm the Boss)
or a new game?

Larry: Each presents their own set of challenges, but I don't think
one is more difficult than the other. For example with a reprint
everyone will be comparing it to the previous version. Are the
components as good? Were any changes made? And more. With a new design
you have to think about theme, the audience it is intended for, layout
of board or new cards and more.

As you can see, each has its own difficulties.

Tom:  Which game, of the ones you've published, is your personal
favorite?  And have you designed any games yourself?

Larry: Another tough question, I would have to say the decision is
between I'm the Boss and Boomtown. Just can't pick which one. It
depends on the group we have together. I haven't really designed any
games myself, though I have helped with developmental work on
different ones. Primarily in the war game industry, though I am not
doing too much of that right now.

Tom: What do you think, as a publisher, of the different gaming awards
in the industry? Do you actively advertise your game, seeking to win
any of these awards?

Larry: The awards can be a tremendous boon for any company. The most
valued I believe are the Spiel des Jahres and Games Magazine Game of
the year. No, we do not actively advertise our games seeking any
awards. We do send each magazine or judge a copy of our game just as
all publishers do. In all cases I can say we have definitely been
surprised and pleased when our games were picked.

Tom:  I didn't realize that the Games Magazine Game of the year was
valued so highly! Have you seen it notably affect sales (as in the
case of Buyword)?

Larry: Games Magazine's Game of the Year award has caused a lot of
lively discussion by gamers every year. Some feel Games Magazine is
out of touch with the gaming world where others give them high praise.
The answer is somewhere in between. Having said that, Games Magazine
is the standard in the US for most non-gamers. This additional
exposure causes an upswing in sales of a title that wins the award.
Generally though, to have won this award, the game must already stand
out.

Tom:  Well, congratulations on winning the award!   I have a question
about game boxes. How do you determine the size of a box - what
factors come into play here?

Larry:  Thank you. The box size is determined by the components. We
try to figure how much of the inner space each component will take,
then allow a little for error. We also receive a little feedback from
the print shops concerning what is feasible and what is economical.

Tom:  Mr. Whalen, thanks so much for taking the time for this
interview.  I wish Face 2 Face Games all the best luck in the future,
and appreciate the great addition to the American market.  Any last
words for our readers?

Larry: It was a pleasure giving you what information we were able to.
We would like to thank all those people who have supported us with
advice, sales and other little details. We will strive to continue to
produce great games for everyone to enjoy.

Tom Vasel
March, 2005
"Real men play board games."

Hi everyone,

I know that B and M board game shops are pretty much non-existent in
Korea but thought I'd take a chance and ask here.

Thanks.

cheers,

david

I had a lot of high praise for Ticket to Ride in my initial review.
I stated that I thought it would win game of the year, and that it had
a high probability of breaking into my top ten games.  Both of those
predictions came through, and Ticket to Ride stands as my most-played
game in 2004.  It is THE gateway game for me to use and works just as
well with a group of "gamers".  I was pleased as punch to hear that
Alan Moon was working on variations to the game and was excited to
play the first in this lineup - Ticket to Ride: Europe (Days of
Wonder, 2005 - Alan Moon).

	 I knew that some changes had been made but expected game play to
remain mostly the same.  Was I ever surprised!  Even though only a few
changes have been made to the game, coupled with the new map, they've
produced a game that is just as good as the original game, yet
seemingly more strategic.  This is good, because I didn't want to play
what would have simply been an alternate map (although that still
would have been interesting) - but TtR Europe feels like an entirely
different game - with the same mechanics.

	 The basic game play of Ticket to Ride is the same (see my interview
here http://www.boardgamegeek.com/article/29132 for details.)  I'll
discuss the differences in this version...

1.) Components:  Days of Wonder certainly listens to their customer
base.  There were many complaints about the small train cards in the
first edition.  I never had a problem with them, but the people who
wanted larger cards should be pleased - the train cards in this game
are full-sized cards, with white borders and of excellent quality.
The board looks really nice, just as the one in the original edition
(although I see that the ridiculous complaints about city placement
are popping up on the internet.  For crying out loud folks, it's a
GAME!).  The train cards also have little symbols on them that match
little symbols on the tracks, allowing colorblind people to play.
Three new station pieces are added in each color and are made of
plastic just like the trains, adding some more décor to the board.  I
needn't go on about component quality; all I need say is that this is
a Days of Wonder typical game.

2.) Rules:  The rulebook is written very nicely.  If this is your
first time playing any Ticket to Ride game, you'd never know it.
Veteran TtR players are notified which sections are new to them.  I
will say that I think this game is a bit more complicated to teach to
new players - I would prefer to show them the original game instead.
Still, however, I've taught TtR Europe to several new players, and all
of them caught on quickly.

3.) Tickets:  Another complaint about the original TtR game was
player's luck when drawing tickets.  Again, I never saw this as a
problem, but I did like how this luck was handled in the Europe game.
Tickets are divided into two piles at the beginning of the game: Long
tickets (six of them - with blue backgrounds), and short tickets.
Each player is randomly given one long ticket and three short tickets,
and must keep at least two of them.  Long tickets are worth twenty or
twenty-one points, while short tickets are worth six to twelve points.
  Players can only get a long ticket at the beginning of the game; the
rest are discarded, and only the short ticket stack is used throughout
the game.  I really enjoy this method; and everyone who's played the
game agreed that this levels the playing field from the beginning of
the game, although it by no means certifies exactly what a player will
do.

4.) Tunnels:  Several tracks between cities have a dark outline around
them, denoting the fact that they are a tunnel.  Tunnels add a bit of
randomness to the game, in that a player can never be too sure how
long a tunnel might be.  Whenever a player is going to place track
between two cities with a tunnel, they must place the colored train
cards they are using (i.e. four green cards), and then reveal the top
three cards of the deck.  If any of these revealed cards match the
color of the train cards being played (or are wild), the player must
play an additional card to match each revealed card.  If they cannot,
they must take back their cards and their turn ends.  Tunnels add a
layer of excitement to the game that I really enjoyed.  Yes, it adds a
bit of luck to the game, but it's luck that the player can control, to
a degree.  Do you really want to build that two-yellow tunnel route?
Well, if you have three yellow cards, you know that you have a good
chance; four yellow cards all but guarantee it, and five yellow cards
seal the deal.  Players who are risky may chance it when they only
have the minimum train cards needed, but they risk losing their turn,
revealing their cards, and showing the other players where they intend
to play.

5.) Ferries:  Some of the neutral gray routes between cities have
locomotive icons on one or more of their spaces.  This means that a
player must play a wild (locomotive) card for each of these icons or
cannot complete the route.  This doesn't seem like a big change, but
it does put a premium on locomotive cards.  Between tunnels and
ferries, I saw a lot more locomotive cards being drawn from the face
up cards on the table.  When playing TtR with experienced players,
we've discovered that it's usually best to leave locomotive cards
lying on the table, as getting only one card instead of two can be
detrimental.  Not so in TtR Europe - players are rapidly scooping up
the locomotive cards.  Resets occurred a lot less frequently in our
games.

6.) Routes:  The board is a lot more crowded than the American one.
In a five-player game, players will constantly be blocking each
other's routes, and the game can indeed get a lot nastier.  No longer
will claiming long routes only be a viable strategy; players must
complete tickets to win.  There are no five-card routes on the table,
only two six-card routes, and one whopping eight-card route (but it's
also a tunnel!)  Even if a player gets all the points from the three
biggest routes, they still need to complete tickets to win the game -
something that makes the game better (although I did like the
build-long-random-routes-all-over-the-board-and-annoy-other-players
strategy every once in a while.)

7.) Train Stations:  Since the board is so cluttered, and since
player's routes will be blocked quite frequently, each player has
three train stations that they can build on their turn.  The first
train station costs a single train card, the second costs two train
cards of the same color, and the third costs three train cards of the
same color.  When building a train station, a player can place it on
any city on the board (preventing any future train stations from being
played in that city).  When the final scoring occurs, players may
utilize each station to use one (and only one) route belonging to
another player for the purpose of completing their tickets.  The
stations actually fit over the trains, so a player can place the
station on top of the route they are "borrowing".  This allows a
player to keep from getting boxed in, and they can usually complete an
important ticket if they wait to play their stations.  All this does
come at a catch, however - each unplaced station is worth four points
to the player at the end of the game.  Several times now, I've seen a
player place a station, and then connect their route a different way -
not needing the station after all - but losing those four crucial
points.  A player must only play a station when they absolutely must -
but in a three or five player game, when the board is most crowded -
playing a station at the right city can be a lifesaver.

8.) Fun Factor:  If you asked me whether Ticket to Ride or Ticket to
Ride: Europe was better, I couldn't tell you; they are both incredibly
fun in their own way.  TtR Europe offers more strategic options,
especially with the stations, and is probably a slightly well-tuned
game.  At the same time, I find that the original TtR has a nice
simplicity, and I (as an American) found the US map a bit more
intuitive.  But these are all minor points; both games are extremely
fun!

Whenever I have folks over to my house, who've never played board
games before, I'll probably still prefer to show them the original
Ticket to Ride.  People who want something a little deeper, or a
change of pace will get introduced to the Europe version.  Not only
have Days of Wonder components improved in this version (something we
thought was impossible!) but the game play has also deepened, without
losing any of that fast, smooth game play that was in the original.
Watching an opponent spend two extra trains to build a tunnel, cutting
off two opponents when placing a route, managing to save all three
stations until the end of the game, completing my long ticket, and
many other enjoyable experiences place this game at the top of my
list.  Ticket to Ride Europe may be a derivative of the first game,
but it's certainly good enough to stand on its own ground; and owners
of the first game can be assured that they are getting their money's
worth when purchasing this version.  When choosing an hour or less
game that accommodates up to five people (with a two-person game
playing equally as well), there are almost no other games I would
prefer over this one.  Alan Moon has struck gold with this series; and
if TtR Europe is any indication, each game will continually get
better!

Tom Vasel
"Real men play board games."

Interviews by an Optimist # 22 - Rick Thornquist

Rick Thornquist is the editor of GameWire - the source for daily news,
information on new releases, previews, reviews and special features on
the world of games.  GameWire resides at Gamefest - www.gamefest.com -
one of the premier online game stores.

Rick Thornquist has been gaming ever since he could move a pawn. In
his early years he played the usual American mass market games before
moving onto wargames, which became an obsession that continued
throughout his teenage years. In his early twenties, work took over
his life and gaming went on the back burner. A few years ago, a chance
meeting with GAMES magazine and their Game of the Year, Tikal, brought
him into the wonderful world of German games.

Along with a couple of other Vancouver gamers, he started the Terminal
City Gamers - the preeminent Vancouver gaming club for German games.
In January 2002, he took over the editorship of the Terminal City
Gamers website and transformed it into a center for daily news on the
world of gaming, previews, reviews, interviews, and much more. This
continued until October 2003, when he moved his talents to the
GameWire feature of Gamefest.

Rick currently resides in Vancouver, Canada.

Tom:  Rick, you attend a lot of gaming conferences each year - more
than anyone I know.  Can you tell us which conferences are your
favorites, and which are the best in the following categories: board
game tournaments, casual gaming play, seeing new board game products,
etc.?

Rick: Tom, I do go to a lot of game conventions - probably too many!
My favorite conventions are the Gathering of Friends in April and the
Essen convention in Germany in October.

The Gathering is basically nine days of gaming bliss.  Three hundred
people get together and just play games all day and all night.  I love
it, and every year when it ends I'm already looking forward to the
next one.

My other favorite is the Essen game fair.  It's huge, and with
hundreds of new games released there every year, it's the place to
play (and buy) all the newest games.

As far as board game tournaments are concerned, I really couldn't say
which convention is the best as I'm not really that interested in
tournaments.  In my opinion, casual game play, or open gaming, is the
best way to play German games.  Pick up a game, grab some people, and
go for it.  This is how the Gathering works, and it's great.

Both Origins and Gencon have a bit of open gaming but the majority of
the events at these conventions are scheduled.  This is fine for
wargames, TCGs and other types of games but I don't think this works
as well with German games.  I did both Origins and Gencon last year
and while they were okay, they would be way better, in my opinion, if
they provided an open gaming location for German gamers to meet up and
play.

As the Gathering is invite-only (and now at its attendance limit) and
with Origins and Gencon both limited in their support of open gaming,
where is a gamer to go?  Well, Derk and Aldie of BoardgameGeek have
revealed that they are going to be running a game convention for four
days in November in Dallas.  This one sounds like it's going to be
just what we need.  I'm hoping I'll be able to go!

If you want to see new game products, Essen is the place to go.  If
you are looking for something less expensive or want to see American
games instead, Origins or Gencon will fit the bill (there are some
other conventions, but they are trade shows only for people in the
game biz).

Tom:  You have more experience with board games than most other
people.  If you were to meet someone interested in playing board
games, but a person who had never really played "designer" games
before, what would be your current choice to show them?

Rick: I first try to gauge what kind of game I think they will like.
For people who are a little more hesitant I would usually suggest
Trans America, The Bucket King or Coloretto (or Apples to Apples if
they were in more of a party game mood).  These are nice fun games
that are easy to learn and get into.

If they are keener, I'd probably suggest the standards - Ticket to
Ride or Carcassonne. When I teach people Carcassonne for the first
time I usually omit the farmer rule - I find it can confuse people on
their first game.  I then add the rule on the second or third game.

What about Settlers of Catan, you ask?  Well, I'm just not that much
of a Settlers fan myself, so I don't use it much to introduce people
to the hobby.  I have used it on occasion, but only when I have a
group that I know will take to the negotiation aspect of the game.

Tom:  Give us an average day of Rick, the internet board game news guy.

Let's see, an average day...  After waking up and getting breakfast,
the first order of business is the commute to my office.  After I
arrive, ten seconds later, I check any email that has arrived
overnight, usually from Europe, and start scouring the Internet for
news.

I have a long list of sites that I check every day, including gaming
weblogs, game designer's websites, game news sites, and game
publisher's sites - both domestic and foreign.  While looking through
them, I set aside the ones that have newsworthy stories.  I also get
news items via email, from people in the game business as well as
gamers themselves.

After completing my Internet search, the rest of my day is spent doing
research on or writing up some of my longer pieces - game previews,
reviews, or things like the Nuremberg or Essen previews.  At the end
of the day I write up the news items - usually around five a day, but
I've done as many as twelve or thirteen on really busy days.  I then
post them, often along with a longer piece.

This all takes anywhere between a few hours to all day.  Sometimes,
like when I'm doing the Nuremberg and Essen previews, I'm working into
the evenings, for days on end. Normally my evenings are free to
actually play the games!

Tom:  Are you ever involved with the playtesting of unpublished games?

Rick: I am, though not a lot.  I usually get roped into playtesting
when I'm at conventions. As a matter of fact, at the recent New York
Toy Fair I got roped into playing a few of Alan Moon's prototypes.
I've been a victim of Mr. Moon a number of times, including a time
when I played an early version of Ticket to Ride.  I remember thinking
the game was quite good, but I also remember it being much easier to
block other people - I think they opened up the board somewhat and
added new routes after I played it.

There was another time I was invited to play some prototypes at
Uberplay while Reiner Knizia was visiting.  It was quite a day - we
burned through 12 different prototypes in one afternoon!  The one that
I liked the best is actually going to be published by Uberplay - the
working title right now is Double or Nothing.

I do like playtesting - most of the time.  Sometimes the game just
doesn't work and playing can be tortuous.  I think, however, it's
important to contribute to the design process to help make the games
better.  The ultimate satisfaction is seeing your name immortalized in
the credits of a really good game (check out the credits on the back
of the rulebook of the SdJ version of Ticket to Ride - that made me
very happy).

Tom:  It's good to hear that you enjoy playtesting.  But there is
something about the final product - with all the shiny bits, etc.  How
important are components to a game?  Or, in other words, do you enjoy
Cheapass games?

Rick: Mmmm... bits.  Actually, I like nice components in a game.  I
think they add a lot to the gaming experience.  I have played lower
quality games and they always seem to be missing something.  The
gameplay is most important, though - I can see a few games in my
shelves with beautiful components that I'll never play again because
the gameplay is lacking.

There seems to be a growing emphasis on bits these days.  Days of
Wonder and Eagle Games have raised the bar for everyone.  The recent
games from Fantasy Flight - Doom and Twilight Imperium - have superb
components.

I actually have played only one Cheapass game - The Big Idea.  It's a
very fun game - lots of laughs - but it goes on a bit long and
outlasts its welcome.  I like to play it every once in a while.

Tom:  Are there any board game companies that you feel are putting out
games with inferior components? - and I'm not talking about small,
independent publishers here, who operate on a shoestring budget.

Rick: Actually, when it comes to components and manufacturing games,
the American game publishers have been going through some changes over
the past year or two.  This was mainly due to the influx of games
manufactured in Germany, which were of very high quality.  The games
manufactured in the U.S. paled in comparison and some publishers
started to look towards Germany to manufacture their games with better
components.

Just as this was starting to happen, something unforeseen happened -
the value of the American dollar vs. the Euro plummeted.  This threw a
big wrench in the publisher's plans.  If they did make their games in
Germany, the exchange rate would mean they'd have to sell the games
for quite high prices in the U.S. in order to make any money.

To the rescue came China.  Some games had previously been manufactured
in China, but the quality was not too good.   The upside to having
them manufactured there was the cost - much, much lower than cost of
making them in U.S. or Germany.  The publishers started working with
the Chinese to up the quality of the games and now, with games like
Doom and others, the quality is indistinguishable from German games.
Not only that, they are able to make the games for a very reasonable
cost.  American companies like Fantasy Flight, Uberplay, Face2Face
Games and SimplyFun are now manufacturing in China, and the quality of
their games is excellent.

The one company that has so far has not jumped on the Chinese
bandwagon is Mayfair, who still makes some of their games in the U.S.
and some in Germany.  I'm afraid I don't think much of the quality of
the games they manufacture in the U.S.  For example, check out the
components in the new version of Modern Art.  The quality is just not
there - it looks like the rules are photocopied!  Compare that to
Fantasy Flight's new Silver Line games like Colossal Arena, which is
of much better quality.  Not to mention that Colossal Arena actually
sells for LESS than the new version of Modern Art!

On the other side of the coin are Mayfair's games that are
manufactured in Germany.  The component quality of these games is
beautiful, but the games are quite expensive.  It will be interesting
to see what happens with Mayfair, whether they decided to move their
manufacturing to China like most other publishers or to keep things as
they are.  I do hope they are working to increase the quality and the
value of their games.

Tom:  Mayfair and Rio Grande were the only game companies of real note
(concerning "German" games) for several years.  Now there is a lot
more competition, from Days of Wonder, Face 2 Face, Fantasy Flight,
etc.  Can all of these companies survive in an admittedly niche
market?

Rick: That's a good question.  In your interview with Jay Tummelson of
Rio Grande, he seemed to think with the market growing rapidly and
each company approaching the market differently, there is room for
everybody.  It seems every year new game companies pop up to join the
party and existing game companies expand their lines.  It certainly
looks like the companies are thriving.

On the other hand, the number of games coming out right now is just
staggering.  It's my job to keep up with all of them, and I really
have a hard time - there are just so many.  I can't help but think
that some games will be lost in the avalanche, and that could hurt the
publishers.  Here's hoping that doesn't happen.

Tom:  Speaking now as a game player only, what would cause you to pick
the games you play?  Obviously there's too many for any normal person
to play - so what characteristics stand out that cause a game to "make
the cut"?

Rick: Are you asking how I choose which games to play on a game night?
  Or are you asking what characteristics do my favorite games have?

Tom:  I'm actually asking how you would choose to purchase/play games
without taking into account reviews/free copies/etc. - if you were
solely a game player.

Rick: That's another good question.  Easily the first thing I would
consider is who designed the game.  There are some games that I have
bought basically knowing nothing about the game except who designed
it.  Reef Encounter was such a game.  A new Richard Breese game?  Sign
me up!

By the way, this highlights the stupidity of the American mass market
game companies who don't put the designer's name on the box.  If there
was a mass market game with Alan Moon's name on the box, I'd certainly
at least give it a look - otherwise I wouldn't even consider it.  Of
course, I'm not the mass market.  I believe, though, if the mass
market saw the designer's names on the boxes they'd get used to the
idea.  If they bought a game that had Alan Moon's name on the box and
they liked it, they may gravitate towards buying another Alan Moon
game, preferably from the same publisher.  This concept works pretty
well with books - I don't see why it wouldn't work with games.

But I digress...  The next thing I would consider when purchasing a
game would be the publisher.  Publishers like Alea (save for Mammoth
Hunters and Fifth Avenue) and Hans im Glück are pretty safe bets -
both of these publishers have many great games.  This is really a
testament to the people who run them, people like Stefan Brück of Alea
and Bernd Brunhoffer of Hans im Glück.  Warfrog is a safe bet as well,
for more complex games.  Days of Wonder is another one.  These
publishers are notable in that they are smaller, and that allows them
to keep tight control on quality.  With other publishers, especially
the larger ones, it can be more of a crap shoot.

It's really only after considering the designer and the publisher that
I'll consider something like the theme, the complexity, and other
factors.  Theme seems to be very big with some people; but after
playing so many games, I don't really consider it much any more.  I'd
almost certainly play a great game with a bad theme - I'd never play a
bad game with a great theme.

Tom:  So you don't consider theme that imperative to the success of a game?

Rick: I think many games are successful because of the theme.  War of
the Ring comes to mind - I'm sure the Lord of the Rings theme made it
very successful.  If you made a similar game about the War of 1812, it
wouldn't sell anywhere near as well.

From my personal perspective, though, I don't really care too much
about the theme as long as the game is good.  I love A Game of
Thrones: The Boardgame, not because of the theme, but because I think
it's a great game.  I haven't even read A Game of Thrones! The theme
of Reef Encounter is not exactly something that's going to set the
world on fire - fish eating different types of coral (!) - but it is a
very good game nonetheless.

There is one funny thing about myself and themes - I actually do like
the game to have some kind of theme.  I don't take to completely
abstract games, for some reason.

Tom:  You said in your biography that GAMES magazine was instrumental
for introducing you to "German" games.  Do you still find the games
section of their magazine useful?

Rick: Unfortunately, for the most part, I don't.  I'm pleased that
they at least have some coverage of games, but three or four pages of
what I think are just okay reviews out of an 80 page magazine (that is
titled 'GAMES', no less!) doesn't really do much for me.

On the other hand, the magazine occasionally does do features on
games, and these can be very good indeed.  The current April 2005
issue has a great feature on the last Essen, written by Eric Martin
(with, ahem, some very nice pictures).  A previous issue had a very
nice feature article on Puerto Rico.

The big games feature in the magazine is the yearly GAMES 100.  This
was the feature that first introduced me to German games, when Tikal
won their Game of the Year.  I think the GAMES 100 is wonderful in
introducing German games to people.  The only problem is that many of
the choices are questionable.  I think you'd agree with me, Tom, that
Crocodile Pool Party is not one of the 100 best games of the year (I
know many people who would actually say it was one of the worst games
of the year).  I shudder to think of someone new to German games
picking that one up instead of, say, about a hundred other games that
are actually good.

All that being said, I am not the target audience for the magazine.
But, keeping in mind the target audience, I sure do wish that the
GAMES 100 were a bit more representative of the best games that are
out there.  This would mean that when people do pick up a game that is
in the list, it will be more likely they will be as pleased with it as
I was with Tikal.

Tom:  What awards do you think DO have a good representative of the
best games out there? (And congratulations on being named a member of
the IGA!)

Rick: Thanks!  I do think the IGA awards are, by far, the best set of
game awards - and I'm not just saying that because they asked me to
join them!  The IGA is the International Gamers Awards, and they give
out yearly awards for the best multiplayer and the best two player
games of the year.

What makes them so good?  Well, first and foremost, they have no
agenda other than to pick the best games of the year - this means any
game from anywhere has a chance to win (you'd think that all awards
should be like this, but they aren't).  Of course, most of the
nominees are German, but these days that's where the best games are
coming from.  The IGAs make it possible for great games from small
publishers (like Alan Ernstein's Tahuantinsuyu) to be nominated and
recognized.

The IGAs are decided on by a jury of well-known gamers from around the
world.  Now this may seem undemocratic but this really is the best way
to decide the best game.  If it was put up to a popular vote, only the
popular games would get nominated and games like Tahuantinsuyu
wouldn't stand a chance.  These IGA jury members know their games and
their track record is solid (except for St. Petersburg winning last
year :) ).

I wish I could say the same for the other game awards.  The Spiel des
Jahres has its own set of rules for picking their game of the year -
basically a family game available in German.  Puerto Rico is not going
to win the SdJ, no matter how many people think it's the best game of
all time.  A game only available in English (or Japanese, for that
matter) has no chance.  Their choices are usually fairly reasonable,
within those constraints, but some of their choices have been pretty
strange.

The Deutscher Spiele Preis used to be good, but they recently added a
popular vote component to the balloting, and this has skewed the
awards away from the best games to the more popular ones.  I've
mentioned that the GAMES Magazine GAMES 100 already - these are okay.
In my opinion the problems with the GAMES 100 are the result of too
few people being involved with them.  They could be much better.

In the joke category are Origins awards and the Mensa awards.  Don't
get me started on these ones.  They are good for a laugh, though.

Tom:  The Spiel das Jahres definitely has a massive effect on sales of
a board game - I've heard that 250,000 sales can be guaranteed.  What
other awards have any kind of power, as such?

Rick: The effect of the Spiel des Jahres in Germany is massive.  For
example, the initial print run for Ticket to Ride was a few thousand
copies.  As of the end of November last year it had sold 250,000
copies!  The winner of the SdJ is front page news in Germany, and the
effect is huge.

No other award has anywhere near that amount of power.  I do think the
other awards have an effect - certainly when I first started buying
games I would use the awards as a guide to the good games.  I think
others do this as well, but the effect is nowhere near the effect of
the Spiel des Jahres.

Tom:  You have had a lot more exposure to new games than most people.
Any predictions for the Spiel des Jahres 2005?

Rick: It's hard to make a prediction because I haven't played any of
the Nuremberg games yet.  Some of the Essen games that may be on the
list of nominees:

Geschenkt
Louis XIV
In 80 Tagen um die Welt / Around the World in 80 Days
Karibik / Caribbean
Niagara

From early reports on the Nuremberg games, these ones may be on the list as
well:

Amazonas
Australia

Ask me again in a month or two once I have a chance to play the Nuremberg
games!

Tom:  Well, bequeath upon the unenlightened some of your vast wisdom.
What Essen games should we peons be playing?

Rick: Ah yes, grasshopper, the Essen games.  There were quite a few good games
from the convention, but these are my favorites:

Geschenkt - Super light card game
Louis XIV - Very good gamer game
Im Schatten des Kaisers / Shadow of the Emperor - Very good gamer game
Reef Encounter - Another very good gamer game

Unfortunately, Geschenkt is only available in German, Louis XIV and Im
Schatten des Kaisers are not available in English yet (though they
will be in the next month or two) and Reef Encounter is hard to find
and expensive to boot.

Note that there are a few notable games that I haven't played yet.  I
haven't yet played Neuland, Das Zepter von Zavandor, Revolution,
Jenseits von Theben or Antiquity.  I have some of them on order, and
the rest I hope to play in the next month or two.

Tom:  Many times there is a vocal group of people on the internet
clamoring to reprint a favorite game they would like to get.  Yet this
is done quite infrequently.  Any speculation why?  Are there too many
new games being released?

Rick: Actually, I think there have been a fair amount of games
reprinted because of the demand.  Off the top of my head I can think
of a few - Roads and Boats, Talisman, KK&K, Conquest of the Empire,
Ra... there are many more.

There are some games that haven't been reprinted, most likely because
the publisher doesn't think it will be worth it.  If a publisher
thought a reprint would sell better than a new game, it is more than
likely they'd do the reprint.  I just don't think that's usually the
case.

On one hand, I think there are too many games being released.  How
many board games were released last year?  Between Nuremberg, Essen
and the American games I tracked on Gone Cardboard I would guess I
kept tabs on around 400 - and there are many more than that (mostly
mass market games).  It's just impossible to give all these games a
chance.  By the time you finally get to play one a few times there's a
truckload of new ones vying for your attention.

On the other hand, the variety is great, and you never know when
you'll run across a gem. The gaming community on the Internet is very
good when it comes to separating the wheat from the chaff and letting
the rest of us know when a game is worthy of our attention.  This
allows good games, for example Oltremare or Fairy Tale, to get
recognition when they might be otherwise just buried in the avalanche.

Tom:  So with the massive amount of new games, what would be your
advice to people who aren't sure what to buy?

Rick: First of all, figure out what kind of game you want.  Do you
want a light card game, a heavier strategy game or a party game?  How
many people do you want it to play?  Do you want a short game or a
long one?  Deciding these things can narrow down the field somewhat.

After deciding what you want, the best way to choose a game is to try
a few out.  Local game groups are a great way to try out new games.
Some stores have demo games available to play - take advantage of
them.  There's no better way to figure out whether or not you'll like
a game.

If you can't try them out first, then seek advice from other gamers.
Tell them the games you like and what kind of game you are looking
for.  Read reviews and look for reviewers that describe the game
enough so you can tell whether or not you'll like it. Most any good
review is worth reading, but it is nice to find a reviewer that has
the same taste in games as you do.

The game ratings on BoardgameGeek used to be really worth something,
now they aren't so much anymore.  The comments that go along with the
ratings can be enlightening, though.  Check out people's comments to
see why they like the game and why others dislike it.

One final piece of advice - don't be afraid to try something
different.  It isn't necessary to just keep buying Settlers or
Carcassonne expansions.  Try something new - you might find something
you really like!

Tom:  Rick, thanks for all your responses here, and your hard work at
the GameWire. Any last words for our readers?

Rick: I did want to thank you for your excellent contributions to the
gaming world.  Your reviews, these interviews and your participation
in the hobby are invaluable.

Thanks for the interview!

- Tom Vasel
March, 2005
"Real men play board games."

As a game reviewer, I often get games from independent publishers.
Many people can't, won't, or don't know how to get their games
published by a larger company, so they set out to produce their own
games.  Sometimes there is a good reason that no other company has
produced the game, often the games are inferior, or need a lot of
development.  But still, gems can occasionally be found, and so I
optimistically look forward to each game I receive.

Ken Stevens has quite impressed me with his games.  Not only are they
fairly high quality for a self-produced game, but also the mechanics
are very similar to that of a "Euro" game.  The Patrons of Venice
(Toccata Games, 2004 - Ken Stevens) is one of his first two games, and
while it has no ground-breaking mechanics, plays out very well, with a
lot of player interaction and meaningful decisions.  Parts of it
reminded me of other games, such as Puerto Rico, etc., but all in all,
I enjoyed the experience.

	 Each player receives a player board that shows three ships at the top
- each with an arrow pointing to the ship to their right, and the last
having an arrow pointing to Venice.  The rest of the player board is
basically a player aid.  A map board of Venice is placed in the middle
of the temple, with two large areas (Pirate Wharf and Market), and a
city made up of seven "campos".  Each campo is surrounded by three or
more spaces where buildings can be erected with some buildings
adjacent to more than one campo.  Two stacks of manufactured goods
(cloth and canvas) are placed near the board, as well as a stack of
"favor" cards.   A stack of raw good cards is shuffled, with one card
being dealt to each player's hand, two placed face-up in the Market,
and three placed on each ship on the player boards.  Each player
receives ten ducats, with the remainder being placed in the "bank".
Players also receive ten cubes in their color.  The second-youngest
player goes first, with play proceeding clockwise around the table.

	 On a player's turn, they choose one of five available actions.  All
players will participate in whichever action they choose, but the
"Lead player" (whose turn it is) goes first, and then all other
players in turn order.
- Reserve Goods on Ships:  Players may "reserve" one of the good cards
on a ship.  If reserving a shipment on their own board, they pay one
ducat to the bank; reserving a shipment on another player's board
results in them paying two ducats to that player.
- Sail Ships:  A number of raw good cards equal to the number of
players are turned face up on the table.  If any of the cards are
"Pirate" cards, then pirates steal the card on the rightmost ship on
each board - placing it face-up in the Pirates Wharf.   Shipments that
have been "reserved" are safe from pirates, and are instead placed in
the hand of the player whose cube is on them.  If no pirates show up,
then each player takes the rightmost shipment into their hand (unless
it was reserved by someone else).  Each shipment card shows a good
with its value (2-6).  Shipments taken can be immediately sold to the
Market, or kept in the player's hand.  All players then move their
remaining shipments one ship to the right, and starting with the Lead
player, replace the leftmost ship with one of the faceup cards (Pirate
cards are replaced).
- Trade Goods:  Starting with the Lead Player, each player may sell as
many of their goods for face value to the market, receiving money from
the bank.  Then, starting with the Lead Player once more, each player
can buy one item from either the Market for face value, or from the
Pirate's Wharf for one ducat each.  Buying continues around the table
until all players have passed.
- Sponsor a Business of Statue:  Each player may sponsor a new
business in the city.  The player must show that they have the good(s)
used by the business (for example, to build a draper, you must have
wool in your hand), pay the amount shown on the business tile to the
bank, and then place it on one of the available spaces on the board,
placing one of their cubes on it to denote ownership.  Statues may be
built directly on a campo, costing three ducats plus one for each
statue already in Venice.
- Produce Goods:  Each player may produce as many goods as they can.
Referring to their player aid, they see what each business they
control produces and the required resource cards.  Players discard the
cards, receiving money for producing the good (depends on what type,
and where the building is located).  Players also receive a
Manufactured Good card (canvas or cloth) from a business, or a "Favor"
card - depending on the type of business.

Play continues until the end of a turn where one player has gotten the
requistie number of points (12 in a three or four player game, 10 in a
five player game).  Each business controlled by a player is worth one
point (two if next to a statue), and each "Favor" card is worth one
point.  The player with the most points is the winner! (ties broken by
money)

Some comments on the game...

1.) Components:  You can tell that the game was self-produced, but not
at first glance.  The wooden cubes are of excellent quality (very
similar to the ones used in Age of Mythology), and the box, while a
little drab, is sturdy and holds the pieces well.  The cards are a
little low in quality but are functional, and the artwork on them
helps differentiate between what each one is.  The money tokens are
small plastic chips, similar to those used in Axis and Allies.  The
player boards look sharp, are laminated, and should hold up well.  In
other words, the whole production looks sharp, and the game looks
almost professional.

2.) Rules:  The eight-page rulebook is very nicely formatted and
explains the game well, although some illustrations would have been
nice.  Still, I had no questions after reading the rules and found
them quite simple to teach to new players.  The only rules confusion
occurred when sponsoring buildings - as players need only reveal that
they have the resources necessary, not actually discard them.

3.) Roles:  When players pick their actions, it feels remarkably like
picking a role in Puerto Rico.  There are, however, two key
differences.  For one, players can pick the same action several turns
in a row; and two, the Lead player gets no advantage other than going
first.  Five actions is about the perfect number.  There are enough
different things to do to feel a sort of variety in the game, but a
small enough number so that players don't have to constantly consult
their reference cards.  Knowing which action to choose often depends
on what the player before you did.

4.) Luck:  The only luck in the game comes from drawing the raw
material cards.  While this can be slightly significant, you may be
desperately waiting for hemp, and it may never show up; it is easily
mitigated by players being allowed to reserve goods on another ship.
Pirates can be slightly annoying; but if you're really worried about
them, you can reserve your own shipments.  The "Reserve" action is
actually really quite interesting, and players who know the right
shipments to reserve, and when - will probably win the game.  Is it
worth it to pay Joe two ducats to reserve his pepper, which will then
get me six ducats? - It all depends on the situation where the game
is.

5.) Players / Interaction:  The game handles up to five players, but
even with the full amount, there is extremely little downtime.  Each
action is very quick: sell, sail, reserve, etc., so players are always
doing something!  The box says that the game is only for three-five
players, although I'm not sure why you couldn't play with only two.
Either way, the game is very involving and feels like it could have
been one of the Alea big box series.

6.) Strategies:  The author mentioned multiple strategies in the
rules, but a few things seemed fairly obvious.  You want to place your
buildings next to two campos if possible, to assure yourself of being
next to a statue.  Also, players must build as many buildings as
quickly as they can, as there is only a limited supply of them.  Games
tend to come down to the wire, with the player who was the most
efficient winning.  The strategies are pretty obvious and straight
forward, maybe not as deep as some other games, but a lot of room for
maneuvering here.

7.) Fun Factor:  OK, the game didn't blow my socks off.  I didn't gasp
out that - hooray, another game about trading in Italy!  Still, I was
pleasantly surprised how good the game actually was, and did have a
lot of fun playing it.  It has restored my hope that good games can be
designed in the Americas, and that an independent publisher can put
out some pretty nifty games.  As far as I can see, the game is
currently only available at www.toccatagames.com, but if you like
strategy games, it's worth tracking down.

The Patrons of Venice, while perhaps not being the greatest game I've
played this year, still has managed to impress me with its clever
mechanics and nice bits.  Ken told me that he's producing these games
from his garage - I wish I could do something half as good!  While not
recommending this to the crowd of people who want "light", fluffy
games, I do think that it's an excellent middle-weight game, with a
lot of player involvement and tactical decisions.  I don't foresee an
inexperienced player ruining a game and am not sure there's an optimal
strategy (the game flows in different routes too much for that).
There are times that I wince when having to play a homemade game.  If
I wince when playing Patrons of Venice, it's only because I'm enjoying
myself too much.

Tom Vasel
"Real men play board games."

Interviews by an Optimist # 21 - Cyril Demaegd

Cyril says this about himself...
"My name is Cyril Demaegd; I was born in 1971. I was introduced to the
wonderful world of board games through classics like Monopoly, Clue
and Risk. Then, around 1981, I discovered role-playing games (mainly
Call of Cthulhu - my all-time favorite - but also D&D, L5R, Star
Wars...). As a role-player, I began to buy Citadel Miniatures and also
board games produced by Games Workshop  (Kings & Things, Warrior
Knight, and the fabulous Blood Royale). Then, French publisher Jeux
Descartes published great classics like Dune, Civilization and later
Settlers of Catan, which haunted many of my nights and introduced me
to the world of German games. About seven ago, I started to think
about developing my own games. The first thing that came into my mind
was to create something around the Discworld universe with a round
board. It was the first step of Ys, which is my first publication as
an author and an editor."

Tom:  Can you tell us how YS came into being?

Cyril: Ys came into form about three years ago. I left this Discworld
theme aside and began to think about a less-chaotic universe, more
influenced by Kramer and Knizia's elegant mechanism.  At this time I
themed the game around the city of Atlantis, and a great flood ended
the game. I had these "double impact" zones (you put your brokers in a
quarter but also in a specific zone) and a lot of complicated stuff
(multi-purpose valued-cards and personal boards for each player, for
example). Then I began to simplify everything in order to fit the
German standards (and unfortunately, the theme vanished a bit during
this process). So I decided that a player should only put two pawns on
the board at his turn. The face up / face down idea (along with the
value of the brokers,
from 0 to 4) came really easily, as I wanted a game with not too much
chaos (everything face down), and not too much calculus (everything
face up).

The final touch was brought by the Market. One night (I guess I was
playtesting to much at this time!) I dreamed about this row/column
system that would affect the value of the gems. The game was ready (if
you except dozens of test to make some fine-tuning, of course!). Being
French, I located the game in a French mythical city, which is a
transposition of Atlantis: Ys (when I took this decision, I wasn't
aware that this name was difficult to pronounce in English! Sorry for
that!)

Then, I showed the game to some publishers. Some of them were
interested, but around the same time I began to think about producing
the game by myself, in order to understand (and possibly master!)
every step of the production process of a game. My brother is an
artist, and he made the board and the cover of the game for me. That's
how I did my first steps in the curious world of game publishing...

Tom:  What were some of the most difficult things about publishing
your own game?

Cyril: Logistics. I would say the most difficult part was to assemble
the different parts. As a small publisher I couldn't produce too many
copies at a time. So, in order to lower the cost I had to find many
solutions for the components (board, cards, pawns, gems) for a decent
price.  These parts came from all over Europe, and I had to ensure
that they would be available at the factory at the right time (and in
good shape), for the assembling process.  Also, gems were a nightmare!
We had to hand-pack 500 kgs of small ceramic gems! Fortunately, my
friends helped me a lot (but I had to promise them to find a better
solution next time!)...

Tom:  YS was dubbed by many people as the surprise hit of Essen '04.
What did you think about the overwhelming praise towards the game?

Cyril: I was really surprised (and pleased) by such praise (especially
this year, because there were many new games in Essen '05)! I think
it's really hard to predict the success or the failure of a game for
an author. The connections between the creator and his creation are
too strong to evaluate the real value of a game with total objectivity
(maybe that's the job of the editor, but unfortunately I play both
roles in this case!). I lived with Ys in part of my mind for maybe 3
years, and I tried to make it a well-balanced game with the kind of
stuff I like to find in German games, but from the beginning I knew
that I would never feel the sheer pleasure of the first discovery with
it.  Now, I've read a few session reports, and I have begun to
understand what it's like to play Ys for the first time! Reviews (even
bad reviews) are extremely helpful for me, as a source of objective
information. People are not writing reviews because I'm cool (or
uncool), but because they like (or dislike) the game. I intend to use
these reviews to improve my skills as an author and an editor...

Tom:  There have been many comparisons of your game to Aladdin's
Dragons by Richard Breese.  Did you get any inspiration from that
game?

Cyril: First I must say that I greatly respect Richard Breese. This
guy did a bunch of great games, including Aladdin's Dragons, which I
really like (even if some spells are a bit too powerful).  Now, to
answer your question, I'm really pleased with this comparison; but, in
fact, when I began to work on Ys I wasn't aware of Aladdin's dragons.
If I must find an ancestor for Ys, I would rather name Doge from Leo
Colovini, as it was the only blind bidding game I owned at this time
(and IMHO, I must say this game is a bit underrated). I guess Doge had
a strong influence on the 0 valued brokers...

Tom:  Are there any other games that have influenced you as a designer?

Cyril: Many of them! I own about 350 games, and I suppose that each
one is a source of knowledge for me.  My favorite games are Princes of
Florence, Tigris & Euphrates, Torres, El Grande, Puerto Rico, Ra,
Serenissima and a few recent things including Game of Throne,
Industria and St. Petersburg. Nothing original in this list, but these
games are (mostly) simple to learn, difficult to master and loaded
with tension. You can play them 100 times and each time you'll learn
something new. Also, most of them brought some new gameplay ideas. My
goal as a designer would be to produce games that fit this model...

Tom:  Are you working on any games to be released in the future?

Cyril: Yes, I'm working on several games with my friends. The first
one is called Amyitis (working title). It's an economic game located
in Babylon, but it's too early to speak about it, because the testing
phase has not begun (I probably won't release it before 2006)! Another
one is Provins (working title), it's a very promising medieval city
building game developed by William Attia. We're also testing a great
negotiation game by Adrien Martinot: The Emperor and the Assassin
(working title). I can't reveal too much about these games but, being
an "objective playtester", I can assure you they've got strong
potential! We're working to release something for the next Essen
fair...

Tom:  Will you continue to produce YS, or will you look to see if a
bigger publisher might pick it up?

Cyril: Right now, I'm not 100% sure about that. A reprint (including
the 2-player rules available on the website) would be great (right
now, the first print is sold-out); but if I receive a good proposition
from one big German publisher, I will definitely consider it! My goal
as a publisher is to propose new games to the public each year, and
it's pretty hard to manage a reprint and a new game at the same time.
We'll see about that in a few weeks...

PS: I forgot to mention one thing about my projects for the upcoming
year. I will probably release a small expansion for Ys, including
pawns and screens for 5/6 players, and 20 new character cards.

Tom:  Often, "designer" games are referred to as "German" games.  But
what about France?  What's the state of boardgaming there?

Cyril: Boardgaming in France is still an emerging (but promising)
market.  There are not many authors and designers whose game are only
sold in a few specialized shops. People in France generally play
classic board games (Trivial Pursuit, Monopoly,...) and classic card
games.  But things are beginning to change slowly. Now, we can see
more and more games translated from German and from English. Also, new
companies and new authors are trying to produce quality games, and
veteran designers are in good shape too! I hope in the next few years
we will see some mentions about a "French school"...

Tom:  Are there any companies in France (aside from yourself) who are
producing quality board games?

Cyril: Definitely (even if we're not exactly on the same market)!
Tilsit, for example, as a great catalog, with a lot of translations
(from Catan to Finstere Flure). Also, their last two releases
(Himalaya ans Skaal) are great "German" games by talented French
designers. In a different way, Asmodée is producing small board games
(like Meine Schaffe, Deine Schaffe, which won the French Game of the
Year a few years ago) and also products oriented for the role-players
(I think you heard about Dungeon Twister, which is a hit in France).
They recently acquired the now deceased historic French publisher Jeux
Descartes, which has great French games on its catalog (including
Serenissima, one of my favorite games).  Finally, I consider Days of
Wonder as half of a French company (and we all know the quality of
their games)...  The problem for those companies (except for DoW and
maybe Tilsit) is that they don't really export their games. The French
authors generally prefer to keep their rights with the German and the
US market and find an agreement with local companies, because the size
of the French market doesn't guarantee a good worldwide distribution
for their game.  But, as I said before, things are starting to change.
I think in the next few years, many companies will try to release
their games in Germany and in the USA.

Tom:  So are there some good games in French that the rest of the
world has never seen?

Cyril: With the development of the internet and the existence of BGG
it's really difficult to "conceal hidden treasures" for a long time.
So, there is almost no unseen good French games...  I think that games
like Dungeon Twister and Sharur: Evolution will probably be big hits
when they are distributed "normally" in the US.  There are also a lot
of good party games from Cocktail Games (Contrario, Unanimo,..) and
rarities like Full Metal Planet, Super Gang and Footmania from the now
deceased Ludodélire. The list is probably not endless, and it will
shrink a bit when the French market is strong enough to permit a wide
distribution of the games outside our frontiers...

Tom:  What upcoming board games are you excited about?

Cyril: I've seen the previews of Nuremberg and I want almost
everything!  First, China. I've already got K&K, but I really like
this new theme, and I really would like to try the new rules.

There's also Louis XIV and Palazzo from Alea. I didn't managed to try
Louis XIV in Essen, but rumors were really good (after all, it's an
Alea game)! Palazzo looks promising too, as every Knizia Game.
Speaking of Knizia there's also der Turmbau zum Babel (The theme looks
really great, and its last Hans im Glück release, Amun Re, was really
awesome).

Days of Wonder has a few hits to release too: First, Ticket to Ride
Europe, which seems to be a gamers version of their previous hit but
also Shadows over Camelot. I was lucky enough to test it a few months
ago, and I can assure you this game is a great collaborative game! I
really would like to see what the guys from Dow did with the game's
design. I'm sure it will be gorgeous!

With the new Dorra (Kreta), the new Kramer/Kiesling (Australia), the
new Queen Games line (including games from Friedemann Friese and
Michael Schacht) and Alexander the Great (from Phalanx), that's a lot
of games!  With all these playing sessions ahead, I hope I will have
enough time to publish something next year ;)

Tom:  Do you make much money from producing games, such as YS; or is
it a labor of love?

Cyril: Ys was a fairly good success, and I made a little bit of money:
just enough to produce a new game. So, I guess it's a labor of love
for now! But I hope to develop enough in the following year to become
a small full-time publisher. The process of a game publication is
really wonderful (well, except for the logistics of course)! You've
got to make clever choices (regarding its mechanism, theme, art and
material) to make sure you're producing a good game for a reasonable
price*. It's pretty difficult, and I don't have the right to publish
the wrong game, or the whole structure will collapse. It's just the
beginning of the adventure, and for now I'm confident regarding my
chances: we've got a few great games to show, and an enthusiastic
testing team. But in the end, it's all in the hands of the public!

* Regarding this price question, I must say that Ys is really
expensive in the USA for now (although I'm selling the game the same
price in Europe and in the USA). In Germany, you can find Ys for maybe
35 €, but in the USA, it's more like $49! It's mainly due to the € / $
ratio, which is 1.32 right now (ouch)! If you add the shipping cost,
the difference is explained. That's a big problem, because it prevents
many US customers from buying the game. Unfortunately, all I can do
about that is to wait for better times, and maybe find new
arrangements for shipping the game.

Tom:  If there were anything you could have done differently when
designing the game, what would you have done?

Cyril: Nothing for the mechanism of the game. We tested Ys a lot to
ensure a good balance, and I'm quite happy with the result. I would
have added the 2-player rules (but they were not ready when we
released the game, so I had to wait to be sure these rules were well
balanced). There's also this forgotten sentence for 3 players (you can
play with 3 or 4 neighborhoods). But everything is repaired on the
website.  For the components, colors of the brokers weren't exactly
like I wanted them, and I would have loved to put glass stones in
instead of the ceramic gems, but it was way too expensive!

Tom:  Have you ever designed home-grown variants for other
commercially published games?

Cyril: No, in fact I don't like that. When a game is finished, it is
finished.  You may add an expansion to expand (more players, more
effects) or modify it (like Sailors of Catan or the expansions of El
Grande did), but changing the rules of a game is a different thing.
Hopefully, the author did many tests to develop the game in a certain
direction. Of course, the game could have been driven elsewhere (maybe
with equal success), but that's the author's choice, and he took this
choice with the experience of many tests behind him. So, I don't like
these "what if" situations. There's certainly many ways to do a good
game, but I respect the author's choice. If I don't like the game, I
prefer not to play it
anymore than to tweak it. If I like the game, I prefer not to think
about that in order to preserve some kind of magic. Furthermore, I can
hardly imagine modifying perfectly pure mechanisms like E&T or Princes
of Florence.

Of course, it's only my opinion, and I don't blame people who like to
make some mods with published games (I'm sure there's really good
modders). It's certainly better to make the game fit your taste than
to leave it aside, but, as I said, I don't have enough time and
motivation to do that properly (with a lot of tests).

Tom:  You mentioned expansions.  What are your opinions of expansions
as a whole - do most of them add to the game, or are they simply
money-making opportunities for the companies involved?

Cyril: I think it depends. Some expansions, like Sailors of Catan,
Elfengold or the expansions of El Grande are really great. When you
play them, the game is really different and interesting. They were
certainly produced to capitalize on the success of the game, but their
quality is not questionable.

Some others expansions are justified by the game: for example, Age of
Steam is clearly an open game. It needs some expansions to reveal its
full potential.  I can also understand the will to expand the number
of players  (5 or 6 players is not the optimum number to play Catan,
but at least, you can do it if you like or if a fifth guy is knocking
at the door).  On the other hand, when a game grabs some prizes, there
are always a lot of sequels, some good but also some bad. Look at
Carcassonne, Alhambra, Catan. Is it useful to produce 2 or 3
expansions a year for these games? I think this kind of strategy may
be good on the short term; but if the customers are deceived by the
sequels, the publisher will loose some credit. Of course, there are
always some exceptions: IMHO Carcassonne die Stadt is certainly the
best version of the game, and the new Ticket to ride is a great
version for gamers. But you certainly can't produce 2 or 3 quality
expansions a year on demand...

Tom:  Do you enjoy playing board games online?  And will we ever see YS online?

Cyril: Sometimes. I played a lot (mainly Medina and Durch die Wüste)
on ludagora.net, which is a Play by Mail. I play from time to time on
BSW (Princes of Florence, Ra and Puerto Rico...). There are a lot of
good games there, and a lot of nice players too. But I'm lucky enough
to get many opportunities to play around a table, so I'm not a regular
online player.

About Ys, there are some plans to release an online version in the
future. The PBM version is almost ready, and I also would like to
release a java version, but I don't know when (another time consuming
activity)!

Tom:  What benefits do you see coming from playing board games?

Cyril: Joy! One of the things I like the best in life is to share some
good moments with my friends. Board games offer a perfect setting to
communicate, negotiate, laugh and even lie (?!) with your friends. A
small box can be the catalyst for a great mix of emotions.  Nowadays,
with the internet, people are closer than ever (and that's a good
thing), but there are many emotions you can't share through the web
(even humor can easily be misunderstood). Playing around a table, you
can really share many positive things. Playing board games definitely
improves your social skills!

Besides that, I think that playing dozens of Puerto Rico or Princes of
Florence games certainly helps you to organize a bit of your brain
activity (a helpful skill if you're a wannabe publisher with many
components from all over Europe to assemble in a tiny box)!

Tom:  So you think it's a good thing to play the same game over and
over again, rather than play a variety of different games?

Cyril: Not really. I test almost every new game (at least for the big
ones), but I've got my favorites too! I love to discover new
mechanisms, but - you know - there's unfortunately not a new Princes
of Florence each year! I've got a lot of games in my collection and,
of course, it's impossible to treat all of them equally. Some games
give me more pleasure, so I play them more often...  Sometimes, my
friends and I can discuss a very long time in order to choose a game,
and that's a good point: I guess this kind of discussion prevents me
from becoming monomaniac! When some great new games hit the table
(like Saint Petersburg or Goa did last year), it's really hard for me
to stop playing them! Luckily, I don't play alone. When you're in a
group, you've got to consider all advice. That's the best way to play
many different things (but who dislikes Puerto Rico? ;)

Tom:  Actually, some in my gaming group actually DO dislike Puerto
Rico.  But that's what I like about gaming - the sheer variety of it.
I hope that we will continue to see a variety of games from you!
Thanks for taking the time to do this interview, Cyril.  Any last
words for our readers?

Cyril: It was a pleasure to answer your questions, Tom. I hope your
readers will like the next games Ystari games will release. We're
working hard on them! See you all in Essen '05!!!

Tom Vasel
March, 2005
"Real men play board games."

NOTE:  I've often wondered how Monopoly would be viewed if it were
released in 2005.  Would it garner the same popularity/negativity that
it does today?  Therefore I'm writing this review, trying to depict
how I would play Monopoly if I had played it for the first time,
current year.

Negotiation games certainly depend on the group.  I've played
negotiation games with hard-headed, fun-loving groups and have had a
blast the entire time.  However, I've also played negotiation games
with folks who were having problems outside the game, didn't want to
trade with a particular person, didn't want to trade at all, etc.
With these people, any kind of trading and bartering can fall flat,
destroying the fun in a game.  Monopoly (Parker Brothers - designer
debated) seems to add a twist on negotiation games - adding luck and
"rent" to the equation.

At first, the board appears to be that of the "roll-and-move" variety,
where one simply follows the roll of the dice.  And this is indeed
true, but the crux of the game is in the fact that players attempt to
minimize their chances of landing on a poor space, and maximize their
opponents.  Dice are not the only randomness in the game, as some
cards are also drawn during game play, contributing to the luck.  But
players cannot make any real headway in the game unless they dicker
with the other players - so the luck only holds so far.  I enjoy a
good game of Monopoly, but only every once in a while.  Even though
negotiation is a mechanic I enjoy, the randomness that comes along
with it doesn't elevate Monopoly over other, better trading games.

A board consisting of forty spaces in a square track is placed on the
table, with two stacks of cards -  "Chance", and "Community Chest" -
shuffled and placed down on it.  Each player chooses a playing piece
and places it on the space marked "Go", and receives $1500 from the
bank.  The remainder of the money is placed in the "bank", as well as
a pile of green house pieces and red hotel pieces.  Twenty-eight
property cards, each associating with a specific space on the board,
are also placed in the bank area.  One player is chosen to go first,
with play proceeding clockwise around the table.

On a turn, each player must roll two six-sided dice and move their
piece clockwise around the track that many spaces.  Depending on what
space they land on, they then take an action:
- Chance:  The player draws a card from the Chance deck and follows
the instructions on it (gaining money, losing money, going to a
specific space, etc.)
- Community Chest:  Same as above, but with the Community Chest Deck
- Free Parking:  The only space on the board where nothing ever
happens - a breather.
- Luxury Tax:  The player must pay the bank $75
- Income Tax:  The player must pay $200 or 10% of all their monetary
value (must be decided before the player counts up their money)
- Unowned property space:  There are twenty-eight spaces on the board
that are property spaces.  Twenty-two of these properties are divided
up into "color-groups", two or three properties of the same color.
Four other spots are "railroad" spaces, and the final two properties
(the Electric company and Waterworks) are utility properties.  A
player landing on an unowned property space may immediately buy it for
the asking price (from $60 to $400, depending on the property).  If
they decide not to (or can't), an auction occurs, and the highest
bidder gets the property.
- Owned property space.  If a player lands on a property space they
own, nothing happens.  If they land on a property another player owns,
they must pay that player "rent".  Each property has a small amount
that is charged to the player landing on that space.  If a player owns
all the properties in one color group, the rent on those spaces is
doubled.  Players may also increase their rent on their properties by
building houses and hotels on them.
- Go to Jail:  A player landing here must immediately head to the jail space.
- Jail:  A player landing here is put in the part of the space marked
"just visiting", and ends their turn.  A player who is stuck here must
either roll doubles to get out, or pay $50 to the bank. (Some cards
also allow a player to escape).  If a player does not roll doubles in
three turns, they MUST pay the $50 to escape.
When a player rolls the same number on both dice ("doubles"), they
must immediately roll again.  If the player rolls three doubles in a
row, however, they immediately go to jail.  When a player passes "Go"
normally, they receive $200 from the bank.

On their turn, or in the short downtime between other players' turns,
each player may trade/sell their properties to one another for
whatever deal they can get.  Players also have the option of buying
houses for their color-properties, if they have all of one set.
Players can buy up to four houses for each property, for the price
specified on the card, and then build a "fifth" house - which is
actually a hotel piece that replaces the four houses on the property.
Houses/hotels must be built evenly on both/all three of the color
properties.

If a player needs to pay more money than they have - they can sell
their houses/hotels back to the bank for a loss, and sell properties
to other players or "mortgage" them to get the funds they need.  If
this still is not enough to cover their debt, the player is out of the
game.  The last player still in the game is the winner!

Some comments on the game...

1.) Components:  Probably the most distinctive part of Monopoly is the
playing pieces, which are different tokens (iron, dog, ship, etc.)
rather than colored pawns.  For some reason this is easier to identify
(Why don't more games do this?) and the pawns do usually elicit a
positive reaction.  The money included with the game is fairly thin
and forgettable, as I much prefer poker chips or better quality money;
but it works.  The green houses are made of plastic, as are the red
hotels; and they offer a good, quick visual of the dangers of landing
on a particular property.  The properties on the board themselves are
arranged in order of value, starting with the cheapest property
(Mediterranean Avenue - cost $60, highest rent - $250), and going to
the most expensive property (Boardwalk - cost $400, highest rent -
$2000).  The board itself is a little bland, with a lot of wasted
space in the middle; but when the houses and hotels are added,
everything looks pretty neat.  The property cards have a lot of info
on them, and since almost every property is different, quite
necessary.  I'm not sure how the property cards and money will hold up
to repeated plays - they look a little beat up after only a few.

2.) Rules:  The rules are fairly simplistic to learn and only take a
few pages.  There are tournament rules that can be found online - and
clarify some of the gaping holes in the original rules.  For example,
the original rules don't clarify timing issues - as there are only a
limited amount of houses and hotels to go around, who gets to buy them
first?  Also, is rent something that MUST be paid, or can a player who
is not paying attention miss the money due to them?   These seem like
innocuous questions, but I've seen all of them greatly debated at
games I've played.

3.) Money and theme:  The game revolves around money - if you lose it,
your out!  Money changes hands frequently during the game, so I'm sure
that the game could help children learn how to handle money.  Oddly
enough, while the game seems to promote monopolies, all I've ever seen
was how it showed the negative sides of them.  In the beginning of the
game, the money amounts being handled are fairly small; but near the
end, they can get rather enormous.  If players aren't staying on the
same level as other players, they can be eliminated quickly.  And this
does add some interesting decisions to the game - how many
houses/hotels should one buy?  If you buy a lot of them quickly, your
chance to make a lot of money is increased, but your available cash is
low.  Also, should players buy every property they land on?  At first,
it seems like the answer is generally yes, but occasionally it doesn't
help a player to buy everything - besides, you just might get it
cheaper in auction?

4.) Elimination:  Monopoly's biggest problem, in my opinion, is the
fact that the game has player elimination in it - something that
usually doesn't go over well, especially in a game of this length
(usually around two and a half hours).  The rules include a variant
that ends the game after the second player is eliminated - and I've
found that this works much better - even though it still causes one
player to be eliminated.

5.) House Rules:  I've played the game with many people, and several
people have invented their own house rules, such as awarding money to
people who land on Free Parking, auctioning off all properties, etc.
Some of these rules really bog the game down, and a few (minute,
actually) improve the game.  So far it seems that most variants don't
do much to help the game - and some of them actually make it quite
dreadful - so I personally tend to ignore them.

6.) Variations:  I've already seen several variations on Monopoly -
Star Wars, Loony Tunes, etc.  A few of them add minor rule changes,
but it is interesting how the theme of the game can be cut and pasted
at will.  Since most of these themes change little to, or nothing, I
would tend to look for one with the highest quality bits when buying
the game (Star Wars Episode I version so far has the best I've seen.)

7.) Problems:  The game has two problems other than elimination.  For
one, there is a high luck factor.  A player who lands on all of one
group of properties (all the railroads, all the reds, etc.) can have a
huge advantage at the beginning of the game.  A player who lands on
very few can also be in a bit of a jam.  The Chance and Community
Chest cards range wildly from being slightly annoying (pay $50) to
extremely hurtful (go to a property that just happens to have a hotel
of an opponent's on it).  Still, skillful negotiation and clever
purchasing can mitigate (not eliminate) the luck factor to the point
where it is palatable.  The other problem with the game is smaller,
but the fact that every property and every combination of
houses/hotels is different causes players to often look up prices.
After dozens of games, I'm sure that the numbers can be learned, but
it does slow the game down a bit.

8.) Fun Factor and Negotiation:  Much of the fun of Monopoly comes
from the fact that you can trade almost anything for anything.  You
can trade Illinois Avenue and a get out of Jail free card for Oriental
Avenue, Pennsylvania Railroad, and $200 - or whatever combination
you'd like.  This is my favorite part of the game, as the shrewdest
dealer frequently (barring terrible luck) wins the game.  It's
possible that one person can bog down the game if they refuse to
trade, ever; but I just skip those people when playing this game.  And
it certainly is satisfying to see someone land on your Boardwalk when
you have a hotel placed there.  The game is fun - I've seen a lot of
people enjoying it - but only if you don't mind a healthy dose of
luck.

I find it hard to determine whether I should recommend Monopoly or
not.  The idea is innovative and interesting, but the roll-and-move
mechanic is sure to put off a lot of people.  At the same time, I've
seen the game played with great success, especially in a group of
extraverts.  There are some tremendous negotiation games out there,
such as I'm the Boss and Dragon's Gold, that have a lot less luck and
provide the same bargaining feel.  But I do realize that there are
quite a few people who enjoy seeing thousands of dollars gained and
lost on the roll of a die.  If luck is your thing, and you also enjoy
bartering, then pick up a copy of Monopoly.  Otherwise, I think I'm
going to have to say pass it up for something a little tighter in the
rules - and a little less lucky.

Tom Vasel
"Real men play board games"