On Sunday, as part of a Cthulu Game Day at Our Game Table (my FLGS,) I had the opportunity to partially lead and play in a game of Arkham Horror.

I should not be teaching this game. I barely know the game and only just tolerate it. Sadly, through a series of unfortunate events I ended up with the task of not only learning the game, but learning it so I could teach it.

Lucky for me, I didn’t have to go it alone. The store owner, Kathy, was reading up on the rules as well. We kind of tag teamed it, which is good. I had prepared short demos for 4 players, what we had was a seven player game.

Yes, that’s right a seven player game of Arkham Horror being led, taught and played by two people with little more than a passing knowledge of the game. Surprisingly, it was mostly a success. I won’t give you a total play by play, but I will hit some awesome points.

It all starts with role selection. Somehow…with only 7 female roles and 9 male roles…we all chose female roles. Not a problem…just not that common of an occurrence I believe.

Our game got us only three gates in the first seven turns of the game, one on The Woods, The Black Cave, and the Unvisited Isle. The game’s 8th turn gave us another gate but I don’t remember where. We ended the game after that turn. We only surged twice, and in those eight turns sealed all three gates which had occurred. We were also able to remove a doom counter off our Ancient One.

Surprisingly, we chose Yigg as our Ancient one since the rules said it would be a shorter game. We ended at somewhere between 2 hours and thirty minutes and 3 hours, only completing half of the game. A short game equals around 6 hours by my estimation then… that’s only kind of ludicrous.

We didn’t get a lot of cultists (they trigger more doom on Yigg.) In the end, Yigg only had 2 doom counters.

Somewhere in the game, we were all given the opportunity to roll and receive a blessing. I was Sister Mary, so I started out with one. Strangely everyone with blessings (4 players total) lost their blessing on the same turn. It was just another odd occurrence in a very unusual game.

After sealing a gate, one player still had enough clues to seal another gate. Which is ludicrous. He also had the opportunity to gain 5 clues at one point and then lost half of his clues, which brought him back down to five. Somehow he ended up with more then 15 clues throughout the game…while others were struggling to get 5. 

When we stopped the game: 3 players had 5 clues, Several players still had some money and only one person had been sent to Arkham Asylum.  There were two creatures on the board, only one creature in the outskirts, we were at two on the terror track and had two doom tokens on Yigg. This game was going to turn into a victory if we had the time to give it three more hours.

Despite not having the time to finish, 6 players liked the game and would play it again. We may not have had a victory, but I’ll call that a win.

Three times in the last 12 months I have sat down to games of Arkham Horror. I have given the game nearly 12 hours of my life and I have yet to finish a game.  I’ve said that twice now. Chances are it’s important to how I feel.

People have told me that I have a problem with the game only because it’s a long game. That if I had finished those games (or any of them) I would probably love the game. I’m just holding the game’s length against it. That’s hogwash. I don’t mind a long game. The fact that I haven’t finished a game of Arkham Horror isn’t my problem with the game. The game’s length is not something I’m going to complain about. 

What I am going to complain about is that it FEELS long.  You can have a long game, but if it drags and people lose interest, then you’ve got a problem. When people actively want to get up and end the game before the game is over, that’s the problem. I don’t care if I’m sitting for eight hours playing a game…I’m playing a game! Awesome!…But eight hours with people who got fed up with it after 2 and a half hours is a problem. The game can be long, but it sure as shooting can’t FEEL long. There.

That’s my first and most pressing matter. Got that out of the way. What else do I not like?

My problems with the game are:

• The speed with which the game allows you to meet the win conditions. We played the recent game for three hours and the game had only JUST given us the chance to cross the 50% mark. We needed six gates, at 3 hours in, the fourth one hit the table. I say three hours but to put it in perspective that was only 7 mythos phases. The game system wasn’t giving us the resources to defeat the game. It was a little annoying….Oh, and when it doesn’t give you the components to win the game, it makes it harder for you to win. Seems like a fair trade off. 
• Too much text. I don’t mind a card that has text on it that does something and is…reasonably well laid out. I hate a card that takes two sentences to tell me it does nothing. “You fall asleep in the shade of a knotty old pine tree planted by Sir Frederick Dickery. Nothing happens this turn.” Flavor much?  Yes. I think flavor is great, but it’s too “cute” for it’s own good. Meaning gets lost in the flourish. Two sentences to do nothing is one thing. A paragraph to say “Roll a Luck check -1. Lose an item if you fail.” Too much. Way too much.
• It’s a cooperative game with an over-reaching goal, but many little goals and victories…that don’t involve all the players. This is what I’m talking about a few paragraphs up. Players get lost in the shuffle off doiing their own thing, not paying attention to the group. They’re still productive to the game, but they don’t need to be involved (they don’t get to be involved,)they just exist on their own and have different things happen at different times. There’s a great dissonance when playing. We are a team, but a fractured team. We’re all still playing for the same goal…just alone.
• Too much dice rolling. Everything is dice rolling. Everything.  You seriously have to roll for EVERYTHING in the game. Sometimes you have to roll for a choice between nothing happening and nothing happening, but you still have to roll.  You don’t even really get to ever just alter your rolls either. You get to change how many dice you roll or re-roll. Problem within a problem? The game only comes with five dice, but you should have like 10 or fifteen handy. When a card allows you to roll +9 dice (nine more dice than you were rolling,) but the game only gives you 5 dice total… I hear the bells of cost cutting.  

Some of the things I’m not going to complain about…

• It’s a vicious system. I’m okay with this. I don’t mind a vicious system that makes you lose. The question is never IF the game is going to screw you, it’s always when is the game going to screw you. You’re going to be taken to task by the game and you’d better just be ready for it. That is not my problem. (My problem isn’t that it doesn’t let you, it doesn’t let you finish.)
• Too much stuff? Nope. I’m okay with all the components. I understand why they’re there. I get it. I’m good with all the decks and tokens and trackers. I’m down with it. Nothing feels useless except maybe the bank loans. …and my issue with the dice.
• The rule book. Once I sat down to read it…it didn’t feel all that bad….there’s just A METRIC TON of stuff to learn and compute.

There are even a few things I like about the game…

• Different decks for different locations. Each “district” gets a different deck of encounters. You kind of have a clue what you might encounter. And…since those decks are so small, you have a better clue the more you play.  Not that you really get a chance that often…but you can pay attention and avoid parts of town that are bad for your current level of stamina and sanity.
• Board lay-out. The board makes sense. It’s fairly easy to understand and navigate.
• The cooperative nature of the game. This is a cooperative game and if you can go into it with that spirit and get people to not give up and go their own way, it’s really an interesting group dynamic game… but…unless you’re a great team leader (not just a great game leader) you’re in for an uphill battle. This game plays unlike any other…and people feel they’re more in control of their destiny than they really are. …but it’s a nice concept.

What Arkham Horror represents to me is a great ego in production. I don’t blame the game designer, I blame the publisher, Fantasy Flight games… Well, the and the fans of H.P. Lovecraft who probably demand something so in depth, insanely difficult, and so detrimentally thematic.     Someone sat back in an office and said “let’s create an appointment game based on Cthulu. We’ll make millions…all we have to do is keep people from playing other games.”

                                                                   Let’s face it, as a cooperative game, you’ve got a little gamer catnip already. Failing the game the first time makes you want to play the again. We’ve all been there. I saw it again last night with several rounds of Forbidden Island. Players want to play a game until they win. It would stand to reason that someone somewhere was going to make a game that was so insanely difficult to win, but so immersive in a world that players would just want to come back over and over and over again until they won (which may or may not happen…ever.)  I give them kudos for creating that game…but I’m not falling under that spell. I’m not blinded by theme and adrenaline, the game is disjointed and not fun. It may be filled with drama, but it’s useless drama. All the little side paths to victory make victory (or at least the end of the game) a DISTANT goal. You’re not playing to win the game, you’re playing to play the game. …until the game is finished playing you. That’s the Arkham Horror way.

                                                                                                                                     You’ve pretty much figured out by now that I don’t like this game. I gave you plenty of clues. My bottom line is this: while I think it’s not the greatest game in the world, it’s also not the worst.  Don’t take that to mean I’m willing to play this game again. I would chose to play worse games than play this game again.                                                                                                                       Arkham Horror was designed by Richard Launius and Kevin Wilson. The game is published by Fantasy Flight Games.

In 7 Wonders you’re building one of the 7 Wonders of the ancient world…basically. In actuality you are charged with building an entire civilization…and you’re doing it one card at a time. Sounds like it could take a long time, but it doesn’t.

The game is played in three stages and each stage starts out with every player getting a hand of cards. Players choose one of those cards to use and then pass the rest of their “hand” to another player, passing alternates right to left with each stage.

Using a card can be playing it as building, adding it to your resource production, using it to build your wonder, or discarding it for cash. All our viable alternatives and you’ll find yourself doing all three by the end of the game.

You need to generate resources to build your buildings and your wonder. You can buy off the buildings of the people to your left or right. In a four player game I had no access to materials (or military quibble) with the player across from me.

Your buildings will do a variety of things for you, all of which are simple and uncomplicated. The more you own, the easier it is to build things and the more points you’ll have at the end game. Most buildings come with a resource cost that you have to pay, some buildings make it much easier to play other buildings.

Building your Wonder is fairly simple as well, each stage of your Wonder has a small cost associated with it plus one card. My first stage cost me two stone and I had to spend a turn and burn a card to erect it. That gave me points for the end game and allowed me to build the second stage which was much more powerful.

The trick with the game is the escalation. Things are very easy to build in the first stage and they get increasingly more difficult to build in the second and third stages. I mean, they get more difficult to build on face value. We’ve already talked about how some cards make building cards easier. The trick is to plan ahead, though. We sat in the last round and not one of us had built a textile production card, so we ended up with several cards in the third stage that just weren’t going to be able to be played.

You really have to pay attention to what your buddies on either side are playing early on as well, to make sure you have access to things, even if you’ll have to pay for them.

One of my favorite things in the game was the ability to deny an opponent something. One player was building quite an army, so I started denying him the military cards. It didn’t help in the long run, but it was another layer of strategy I chose to employ.

In the end the game was won by the player who was teaching the game, no problem with that. I don’t know if I came in third or fourth. By the time the game ended I had figured it out and was feeling really comfortable with it, though I was noticing all the things I wish I had done differently early on. It’s a game that’s going to get better with subsequent plays. There’s randomness in the deck shuffle and construction which makes the game different each time, but it’s the choices of the players that really make it soar.

I’m a fan of 7 Wonders. It’s quick to play and not too complex, but still deep enough to be fulfilling. It’s definitely on my buy list.

7 Wonders was designed by Antoine Bauza and is published by Asmodee games.

(Links will be added later today.)

One of my followers/followees was talking about the upcoming arrival of their game order, which included Pandemic:On the Brink. I said that this expansion didn’t add that much to the game, which is really what I thought but not at all what I wanted to say.

You see, On The Brink adds a lot to a game of Pandemic (not that the game needed anything, but it does.) It adds a lot of more difficult variants and ways to play. My friends love the Mutation variant, and I’m a huge fan of the Virulent Strain cards. I have several friends that love the adversarial feel of the Bio Terrorist Challenge. There’s really something for everyone in the game now.

What I think I really said is that the expansion doesn’t really add a challenge. It most certainly does. All those above mentioned variants and alterations do increase the difficulty of the game. It’s true. What I was really referring to is the new action cards and the new role cards. The original five role cards are still the best (I’m including the alteration to the Operations expert in that.) The other roles are good, but when I play the game I’m still hoping to get one of the original five. 

The new action cards are also nice, but they don’t improve the challenge of the game. Those cards actually seem to make it a little easier. Basically what they provide is a different way to solve the “problem” of the game. They’re a different approach at the system. They definitely increase the replay-ability of the game, so yes they do deserve to be.

The new actions and the roles are fine, but if they were the only thing in On The Brink, it wouldn’t be a must have for me.  The variants are what make On The Brink hum. That’s what I meant the other day. …It’s just, that’s not what I said.

So, now I’ve said it. If you weren’t involved in the discussion, you’re scratching your head. I get that. Sorry. There’ll be something more for you tomorrow.

Thanks for stopping by and have a great day!

Let me be clear, there is no money in this. None. It’s only getting something you’ve written “published” and seen by people. I can’t even offer that many people will see it, but I’m working on that.

Knowing that, do you still want in?

I am accepting submissions for content for the blog. Text content only. While we are going to start video blogs and return to making some audio content, I’m not accepting that at this point.

What I am accepting is:

Reviews. Reviews will be approximately 500-800 words. You may discuss mechanics, what you like about the game, what you don’t like about the game, how you came to play the game. Standard review material, with one caveat: I prefer my content to be personal and passionate. I do not follow a rating system. I endeavor to include the name of the publisher and the game designer in the posts, and if I feel strongly about the art I often include an artists name as well. Simple rules.

Articles. Articles will be approximately 500-800 words and be game related. What makes an article game related? It’s got something to do with games. Ideas can be discussing a trend in the industry (Deck Building anyone?,) Theory and Practice in design, a player’s perspective on a mechanic, talk about an emotional response you’ve had to a recent game.

Session Reports. Session Reports will be approximately 300-500 words. These should focus on a specific game and make them interesting. A standard “we played ‘blank’ and it was fun. I won.” is not acceptable. I’m not noted for my session reports, though many of my reviews are based off a specific play of a game. I include other players, but rarely names to protect the guilty. There is a line between Session Report and Review. There is also a line between Article and Session Report.  Just keep that in mind.

I am not accepting Design Diaries or Journals at this time (we do have plans, more on that on Monday.)

Last thing, please do not discuss, review or report on games that are on Kickstarter or about to go on Kickstarter. We are trying to develop our system and theory regarding this. Thank you.

Okay…the technical and official stuff.

It is my request that all content submitted be original content, not published or posted anywhere else. I ask that this remain the case for one full week from publication on Cartrunk.net. This gives a 1 week window of exclusivity before you can post your submission to other sites like BGG. (And I encourage that with a link back to Cartrunk.net.)

We try to keep content in a PG-PG13 range on Cartrunk.net. Please respect that. I do reserve the right to reject or edit content (but editing will be with your knowledge.)

All submissions should be sent to John@cartrunk.net. Please include them as an attachment (I prefer MS Word, but accept other formats) or in the body of the email. I will keep you posted when I publish, hopefully within one week of your submission.

We will post your name, website, twitter account with the article. It will be titled starting with the tag Guest Post. I will support the article as I support every post on Cartrunk.net (including using all distribution methods that I use.)

Thank you for considering Cartrunk.net as an outlet for your creativity and opinions in relation to games. We appreciate your support of our endeavors.

Any more questions? Hit the comments so that everyone can benefit.

Thank you!

~John

In a way, some of my prayers have been answered. It seems that there is discussion about getting a reprint of Tammany Hall to happen. The time table is a little sketchy (we’re not talking soon, but we are talking in the fore-seeable future.) What they need is some confidence that the game will sell, that doing the reprint is going to be a good idea.

Their mechanism for getting this information is through their facebook page. Please, if you want this game to be reprinted and expect that you would buy it, please go the StrataMax Games Facebook Page and weigh in! Leave a comment, or post a message. Let them know that you do want this!

Now, I know some of you don’t have Facebook. If that’s you, please leave a comment here. I’ll post it over there for you giving you credit.

You can also go to the StrataMax Website , but there’s very little there. You can visit the Tammany Hall BGG Page where there is a discussion thread about it…but they want to keep things on the up and up there. It seems BGG has a policy about pushing for reprints or something. I’m not sure myself. They didn’t start the thread, fans like me did. So, I don’t know how that is outside of what BGG is all about.

Basically, Use the Facebook Page first. Use me Second. …and if all else fails, consider the BGG page…but be careful about that one. Make sense?

Here’s the truth of the matter, I want this game reprinted. I think it’s a great game (as you could tell from my reviews and my persistence with this cause.) I want to get a copy in my collection and share it with people. It’s a great game. …I’d love your help, but I want to make sure that we don’t stilt their numbers and give them the wrong idea. Please put your two cents in, but only if this is really a game you’d consider buying if it was available. It’s player driven. It’s politics. It’s worker placement… it’s a great experience that doesn’t rely on fancy cards and complete randomness. It’s an awesome experience. …So, I think you do want this game to be reprinted. …But ultimately that’s up to you.

Please consider joining this cause. Please consider putting your oar in the water.

As this story develops, I’m going to keep you updated. When StrataMax has more to say on the potential reprint of this game, I’ll forward the information to you through this site and through Twitter. I feel very strongly about this game and I don’t hide my passions. You know that. This is exciting news…and it means a lot to me…so you can bet I’ll be talking about it.

Thanks. …Now go tell these people that you want Tammany Hall Reprinted!

I’ve taught a lot of games in my time. I’ve had “classes” ranging from one person to 30. I’ve spent time as a teacher, educator, camp counselor and the like. With that said, I’m not a genius. I’m not a great teacher. I don’t know all the answers. I do know what works for me.  So here are the some rules I follow when teaching a game.

Rule #1: Never Say It’s Easy.

I can’t recall where I first learned this, but it is my number one rule. When you begin your instruction to someone by telling them it’s easy or simple, you’re setting them up for failure. If they don’t get it at first their mind begins to tell them that they don’t get it and if this is an easy one what hope do they have? You’re not purposely insulting someone, but you could be silently insulting someone.

The main thing to remember is that level of difficulty is a subjective thought. We all find different things difficult and different things easy. You may feel that it’s a simple game, but maybe you’ve got a different background that makes it so. Perhaps the people you are teaching aren’t going to find it as easy. You just don’t know. 

Rule #2: Repeat. Repeat. Repeat.

I learned somewhere that you have to tell people something you want them to learn 3 times. You tell them what you are going to teach them, you teach them, and then you tell them what you taught them. Sometimes that works in games. Very often you’ve got an eager audience, a board on the table and funky little bits drawing their attention. 3 times before plunging in isn’t going to happen. You’re lucky if you get through the rules once. Even in those situations where the natives are restless, you must get through the explanation and it’s best if you hit the key points more than once.

A lot of times I’ll ask them to repeat something I’ve just told them. Usually key concepts or something that may be out of the ordinary for a particular play group. Asking them to repeat something, or asking them what something you’ve just explained does, how it works, etc. not only reinforces what you just said, it gives you an alibi later in the game when someone accuses you of not telling them something.

The key is to find ways to restate things you’ve telling them. Unlike real lecture teaching, you’ll have the bonus that they’re going to be experiencing it very shortly, it’s not at all life or death, and there will be no test. Your pupils can ask questions, consult the rules and what not even as they play (if they need to/want to,) so it’s no big deal really, but it’s just good business. You want them as prepared as possible before the first turn.

Rule #3: Make Them Play To Your Level.

This is the rule I get the most flack about, but trust me on this it’s a better way of doing things. Even when I was working with the five year olds, I wouldn’t throw a game. I wouldn’t change the rules or give them an advantage. Yes, nine times out of ten you’re going to beat them. It’s that tenth time that’s the goal.  You do need to be aware that they are having fun and learning as they do things. I always ask a person “why did you do that?” or “why didn’t you do that?” I make them question their game play. I’ll tell them why I made a big move or what not. We’ll talk the game as we play it, but I won’t toss the game to make them feel better about themselves.

They know you know the game better. It’s implied in most situations that you’re going to do better and probably going to win when teaching a new game. Kids know when you’ve thrown the game. In essence you are lying to them. Is that really what you want to teach? I prefer to teach perseverance and goal setting. A person who loses a well fought game will want to play again because they’ll want to do better next time. The key is to have fun and be a good sport about it. Winning the game and then bragging about it is not the right thing to do. Winning the game and then telling them how well they did, how much fun you had…that’s going to get them to come back.

There is nothing wrong with a person who wants to play a game just to beat you. Eventually they will and imagine how rewarding that will be? On the other hand, losing a game of checkers to a five year old is not that emotionally fulfilling…but you’ll get over it. 

Rule #4:Everyone Learns By Listening(Despite what they tell you.)

Some people will tell you that they need to play it to learn it. I’ve already touched on this briefly, but do not give in to the demon who whispers in your ear and says “Just deal out the cards and play.” Yes, the person may think they are learning best just by doing it, but it goes a lot smoother if they’ve heard the rules before they start. Our subconscious is doing wonderful and miraculous things, while we think we’re not listening and not comprehending we are.

What you need to remember is that if you give up on the teaching and just deal and play you are setting yourself up for a round of play that is tedious and frustrating. You will still need to explain it to them as you go. Instead of re-enforcing the rules during the play of the game, you’re teaching the rules during the play of the game. In essence, you’re a step behind. Remember Rule #2? You want to repeat and repeat and repeat. If you skip the first pass, you’re not repeating.

Rule #5: Seeing Is Believing.

Visual aids help people learn, particularly with games. Using the cards, the board, and other components is key to successfully teaching a game. You definitely want the game out of the box when you start. A lot of times I’ll use the instructions of a game to set-up the game, putting things out as I encounter them. There is merit to that (otherwise, why would I do it, right?) There is also merit to having the stuff out on the table when they begin.  People are tactile, they want to hold the pieces and flip through the cards. It’s how some people will learn. However, beware the fidgety pupil who is just playing with the little pieces (and yes, that pupil is me.)

Rule #6: Strategy Is Best Discovered.

When you know the secrets it is very difficult not to blurt them out. You must suppress that urge. It’ll do you more harm than good. When you start talking strategy while instructing a game, you’ve moved on from instructing to telling people what to do. What is worse is that you’re telling them what you do. You are creating clones of you to play against. While that may be fun for some people, I enjoy playing with others, my elementary school report cards say so.

Looking at it another way… When you started playing the game, did you enjoy discovering things on your own? Finding new strategies and how to overcome challenges? Playing a game is much more than playing a game.  Playing a game is uncovering the secrets, figuring out the puzzles, finding ways to overcome your opponent and be victorious. Telling new people strategy points takes that away from them. It steals a little joy and might make them enjoy the game less.

This does not mean don’t play your strategy the first time you play a game. Do what you’re going to do. I’ve already told you not to pull your punches. …but this is how, hopefully, you learned, by watching other players and figuring out how to do what they’re doing.  And then figuring out how to do different things on your own.

Teach people how to play the game, not what to do while they’re playing it.

Rule #7: Simile.

That is not a spelling mistake. I am actually telling you to use figures of speech while instructing. If the group you are working with has played together before, it’s a good idea to know what games they’ve played/know. When teaching a new game you can often use those concepts to help illustrate the new game.

I can’t imagine trying to teach a tile laying game without using the phrase “…like in Carcassonne…” . My playgroup knows Carcassonne very well. So if it will help me move them towards a place to play a new game, why would I not want them to think about it?

There are pitfalls. If you bring in a concept that is similar but different, some people may get stuck on the comparison and fall back on their knowledge of the game they know. It’s not an insurmountable obstacle to overcome, just beware that it can happen. Don’t be afraid of using their knowledge to help them gain more knowledge. It’s about building blocks. 

Rule #8: Preparation Is Good.

The more you know, the better of you are.  This is as true in life as it is in games. I really try to avoid opening a game for the first time and teaching it the same night. If that’s going to have to happen, I try to sit out a game or two and read the rules and prepare to teach. I’d rather have time to read the rules, dry run the game, and look up some FAQs and forums about it. I figure the more information I have the better the instruction of the game will be, the greater the chance of a successful game.

There is another side to it as well. Prepare your group for the introduction of a new game. Showing up one night with a new game they’ve never heard of is probably not the best way to get them in the mind-set to learn it. Recently I was informed of a new game someone thought I would like. I researched it a little and formed my opinion. I sent a link and information on the game to several people in my play group to give them a heads up while I waited for my shipment to come in. I talked it up and had them excited, so when it was in and I was ready to teach it, they were ready as well. They were excited and they had a little idea of what to expect.

So, preparation is good, but it’s not just good for you, it’s good for everybody.

Rule #9: Games Are Art.

You may think the game you’re teaching is the best game in the entire world. Not everyone may agree with you. You may think your game group is going to love a particular game, that it’s right up their alley, but in actuality it’s not. Reading people is a very difficult thing to do. As much as you may talk to someone about a certain topic, you must leave room for the intangibles.

Games are an art. I truly believe this. Art is subjective. Don’t get discouraged when the Mona Lisa turns out to be graffiti on a downtown wall. It’s not you, it’s not them, it’s not the game…it just is. I’ve come across many games in my time that I think are real winners. They’re in the zone of other games I play, but certain groups just don’t take to them. I do play with several groups and I’m always astonished when a game that should work doesn’t or a game that shouldn’t work does. It’s just a way of life. The strangest part is that three months down the road their opinions may change. It never ceases to amaze me when someone randomly asks to play a game that they hated the first time out of the box. When it slowly finds it’s way into heavy rotation I’m even more flabbergasted.

There are so many factors that can affect whether a person likes a game or doesn’t like a game. You can’t know everything about what is going on in their head or hearts forming their opinion. Regardless of their opinion of the game, you can still have fun and you’ll still be friends when the game is done. If that statement isn’t true you’re doing something wrong. 

Rule #10: Patience is a virtue AND a rule.

Patience is always a must. You will find yourself among students with different learning abilities. You will come across pupils who react to everything with humor. You will encounter learners who just don’t get it or get it faster than everyone else in the group. You may see all of these people in the same group.

As with most education situations, there should be one educator or at least a unified voice. You need to find a way to keep control of the situation and not let it spiral helplessly into useless chaos. Being a forceful disciplinarian in a situation like this sometimes doesn’t feel right and you want to respect everyone’s learning abilities and challenges… but the truth is the joker needs to shut up, the smart guy needs to learn patience, the doer needs to listen and the slow learner needs to not give up. Losing your temper won’t make any of that better, it’ll make it worse.

…but you do need to keep a firm hand on the situation. If you get through a session or two where you can not only teach the game, but really show them how you expect them to react and interact in the teaching situation, then you’ll be much better off in the long run. It’s about finding ways to illustrate the expected behavior. I wish that I could tell you exactly how to do that, but each person and situation is different. Just know that this is indeed the key to a better game instruction experience, getting your pupils to acclimate to expected behaviors without going ballistic or getting disjointed over it. Remember, it’s probably not you, your teaching style or the game, it’s them…but they’re why you’re here, so find a way to make it work.

Remembering and following these ten guidelines is going to help your teaching experience. You may not get to follow each of these ideas every time (I don’t get to,) but use as many of them as you can for the most positive and rewarding experience possible. Your group will love you for it. …and you’ll feel better about it too.

I know that books are important. Reading is fundamental and all that, but I think that board games are just as important in a person’s development (and not just from childhood to adulthood.) Games are a valid pastime, they are a legitimate hobby, and a very real way of life for a good many people…just the same as books are.

I’ve had an issue with my mother recently too, and it ties back into this as well. You see, she doesn’t tell anyone I’m getting a board game I designed published. I caught her not talking about it to a family friend who asked about me. I asked her why…and she pretty much told me that getting a board game published doesn’t mean anything to her. She doesn’t understand it.

So this is where it comes together. See, for me board games are like books. Being an “author” of a book is the same as designing a board game. It’s true. If you’re an author and you disagree, let me know (that’s why this is a discussion.)

We, as designers/authors, create a work of art by infusing novel concepts with universal themes/mechanics. We use character archetypes and craft understandable conflicts between them. Yes, even cooperative games have conflicts. As we create these games we must be considerate of over-reaching arches and story elements so that game’s drama will grow at an acceptable and interesting pace to the eventual resolution which should be satisfying to everyone (even if they lost.) Games should take players on a journey of the mind and imagination, as good books do.

What sets a game and a book apart is that a book is primarily a solitary experience (to a point,) and everything that a reader needs to have the experience is available in the book. The words that have been set forth are all that a reader needs to delve headfirst into the adventures before them. It’s no simple with games. The box may have everything physically needed to play the game, but a game is not often a solitary experience. Games require sharing the experience with others. Games require the interaction of more than one participant to reach their full potential.

I admit that an argument could be made that books rely on interaction to reach their full potential as well, that the discussions of books after they have been read, while they’re being read, and before they are being read are as important to a book’s life as actually reading them. …but if a person sits down with a book and reads it, they have had a complete experience. Everything else enhances that experience.

It’s just no so with a board game. You cannot sit there with a set of rules, a game board, and some pawns and have the full experience of the game. You need other people and this, Dad, is why board games are better than books in my opinion. The world is full of people. We must interact with people every day. We are presented challenges and conflicts every day. Board games prepare us for these; for the people and the challenges.

We have to consider the end goal of every decision we make in life, which is a process boiled down to it’s essence in the play of a game. The confines of 30-45-60-90 or 2hour plus game present us with life lessons if we’re wise enough to see them. My choice of a role in Puerto Rico directly affects the choice of several other people, and eventually their success or failure. Placing a farmer in Agricola is about working with other people to achieve the same goals in different ways. The economics of a million games help prepare people for risks, rewards and returns on their investments. Board games teach through experience a wisdom that is evident in books, but presented there as only knowledge waiting to be experienced. A book provides a lesson learned in thought, while a board game present a lesson learned through experience. It’s a difference of practice and theory.

Books provide a wealth of creative choices, they allow the mind to create real images based on the experience of words.Each word is loaded with the reader’s perception of the word, the experience of it’s meaning for them. Each reader has a different experience. Each time the book is read, the reader’s experiences have changed so there is a shift in nuance and imagery that they create to match the words, making the second, third or fourth read a new experience (or a least a more subtly different experience.)

Board games are also different each time they are played. They are different because the players are different. Even if you play the same game with the same group of people, the lessons and outcome of the last game will flavor the choices of the participants. It’s inevitable…and it’s perfect. It allows classic games to have new life. They still, and always will, present  creative choices based on limits and structures…and the actions of other people.  To me, there’s more real life going on there. That’s why I choose board games over books.

…but, again, I’m not saying you have to make a choice…

I hadn’t met The Resistance yet. Haggis was my first game from Indie Boards and Cards.

A few weeks after I got the game, we went to get it on the table for a two player game, but found that some of the cards were creased, crimped and marked. It was unplayable at the time. The gang at Indie Boards and Cards were on top of it, and replaced the cards very quickly. Kudos to them! Great customer service!

Haggis became an always pack for a little while. I shoved it in the bag because it fit and I was hoping for an opportunity to play it. I finally knew that the game was a trick-taking game, which is a mechanic I pretty much avoid. However…after playing “the Original Wizard card game” in 2011, I was willing to give trick-Taking another shot.

Preamble out of the way, here’s the meat of the story…and yes, that’s a play on words.

It didn’t do it for me. Haggis was not another revelation in the trick-taking genre, just another participant.

I felt the scoring system was complicated to me. That could be because I just didn’t understand it. I didn’t realize until after the first game that 3,5,7 and 9 were actually 5 points each or something like that. I’m still not sure on the betting mechanism, because it was explained to me as possibility, and not a necessity, so we skipped it.  I seem to recall someone saying something about remembering how many cards we had in our hands when the first player went out, but to continue playing until only one person is left…and then we score. Which kind of threw me off.

From a card standpoint, one of the aspects I love the most about the one trick taking game I enjoy is the analyzing who has what cards. Removing a number of cards from the stack each time creates an unpredictability in that. I think there’s quite enough unpredictability in the game already. I’d rather see those cards in the game than out of it.

Then there are the “bombs.” There’s a system for rating these and how they work. I think that felt kind of obvious after a while, but these three cards still…just felt a little wonky to me. When I could and couldn’t use them wasn’t so much of a mystery, but an annoyance. The act of using them, like any weapon of assured mutual destruction, was fraught with worry and strategy…but still just felt like an inevitability. Put in a position to use them, there’s no real reason not too. Each round goes so fast…if you’re not comfortable that you’re winning the round, you better use them. …just make sure you use the right amount/combination or you’ll be sorry. 

The actual “trumping” was fine, I guess. It made sense in the grand scheme of things. So no complaints on that. It was a little weird at first that, at least for me, when I played cards I played them in groups dependent on what had been previously played. My experience is that it’s one card at a time…But Haggis is different. I didn’t dislike this, but for me it was harder to track cards the way I like to in a trick taking game. It moved faster, which is another bonus.  As I said, no complaints on the actual playing of cards (except the bombs, but we’ve already been there.)

I trust the people who said they liked the game. I trust them to know what a good game is. They tell me this is a good game, I”m not going to dispute that. What I’m going to say is that it’s really not a very good game for me. It didn’t change my opinions on the genre. It stressed me out, frustrated me and then annoyed me. That’s what I felt.

If you like trick taking games, I encourage you to completely disregard everything I’ve said. You’ll probably like or even love this game. If you’re not a fan of trick taking games, then I’d probably give this one a pass. If you’re on the fence on trick taking…toss a coin, or find a friend who has it and try it first.

I know…as you read this you’re thinking “Wow, he found a lot of problems with the game.” That’s not really true. I’m just really opinionated and had a very emotional reaction. I found it hard to be objective in this one. I just couldn’t wrap my mind around this one, and I did try…I forced myself into a few more rounds than I should have.

Anyway, it’s not a waste, it’s just not for me. I hope it’s for you because I have a lot of faith and interest in the other and future releases of Indie Boards and Cards.

Haggis was designed by Sean Ross and is published by Indie Boards and Cards.

find out more. Talk to someone other than me. Just know that I can’t be objective in this. I have a very strong aversion to trick taking games…which produces very strong opinions against them.

I weakened a little last week, I actually played it. The lesson I’ve tried to teach people most of my life is true. Every now and again you need to be reminded that you can’t judge a book by it’s cover (or a game by it’s box.) Small Wonder is good and it’s now on my list to acquire at some point in the future…

I can only give you the briefest of overviews, but I hope this helps and is at least moderately correct. 

You are given an opportunity to choose a race and a special ability. These come as a set and the sets are different in every game. You can choose 1 of six different sets, but you’ll have to pay a price for some of them. They are placed in a random order from 1 to six. If you take the first one it’s free. The second one will cost you one dollar, the third will cost two dollars, and so on.

Once you have a race and special ability you get the tokens for the race, a number equal to the sum of the special ability and the race. This number is going to be between 8 and 11 mostly. Though it can swing.

On your turn, you take your race tokens and starting on the edges of the board, expand inward claiming open lands and attacking occupied lands.  When you run out of people’s to play, you can alter the amount of people within each land, and then gain points for the lands you control.

Your next turn allows you to redeploy your peoples if you want, for further expansion and more points…or you can put your race in decline and choose a new race.

Putting your race in decline is a really interesting concept, and during my recent game, I didn’t make use of it nearly enough. I was actually trying to get through the whole game with one race, I didn’t want to lose a turn. Sadly, what I didn’t realize that even if my race was in decline, I still go points. Otherwise I would have done it sooner.  The thing is, as time goes on you’re feeling a crunch of diminishing returns, and THIS is why it’s called SMALL WORLD. It’s a world to small to contain all the races. They have to decline in order for you to succeed!

Once I did decline my race, my point totals ran back up to where they were a few turns ago. I felt awful, but it was a great experience. The thing about declining a race is that it is no longer active. You can’t expand with it. They tokens get flipped over, you lose the power…but you can get another race and power (and maybe leverage your declining race!) You can only ever have 1 active race, so keep that in mind.

Small World is an area control game, to be sure, but it’s cute, clever and quick. There is interaction, but it’s more the interaction of preparing and discouraging. There wasn’t any real “attacking” going on. You were either ready for an attack so it would never come or….you were going to lose the attack. No biggie.

One of the things about the game I appreciated the most was the fact that it’s a finite game. There is a set number of turns that you play towards. You see the end coming.  As you know, I like being able to work towards a deadline. It’s helpful…or at least better for me than working towards and achievement.

I had a lot of fun playing this game and I was really digging the potential for nuance. I was really happy with Small World, you probably will be too. It may not have been a world of laughter or tears, but it’s a world that made we want to visit again, that’s no small feat given how much I really didn’t want to go there in the first place.

 Small World was designed by Phillipe Keyaerts and is published by Days of Wonder.