Twilight Imperium: First Impressions

I finally got the chance to play Twilight Imperium recently, and wanted to share my experience. It really  is the behemoth of board games, and it requires a significant time investment if you ever get the chance to play it, so it's worth knowing what to expect.

That said, I don't think its fair to couch this as a review in the way I did with Pandemic and The Game of Thrones board game, since I have only played it once. So, instead, here are my first impressions of Twilight Imperium (TI). 

Space: it's full of plastic

Firstly and most obviously is the scale and scope. The game has you vying for control of the galaxy following the fall of the tyrannical Lazax empire. While TI has much in common with Risk as a game of strategy warfare, it is so much more than that. You don't just have to consider the military arena, but also the economic, political and technological.

It's not only possible to survive while being militarily weaker than your opponents, but also to thrive, as you lean on your other advantages to gain leverage on the other players. I took on the role of a race that was, broadly speaking, the 'military-industrial complex' - the Barony of Letnev - while the player to my right was a race of more pragmatic, trading-focussed space lions - the Emirates of Hacan.

While I started in a position from which I could threaten and bluster my way into profitable trade agreements - to ensure 'mutual coexistence' given our proximity (read: not turning my fleet into a giant space vacuum cleaner and blasting the kitties into the nearest supernova) - his economic superiority, combined with some of my own poor fortune (read: poor planning), meant that I became pretty dependent on that relationship to maintain any grip on power by the middle of the game. Since my race needed trade goods to gain an advantage in combat, the cancellation of that trade agreement would have been pretty disastrous. I found myself Harkonnens, beholden to my very own Guild.

My fleets about to get into trouble with the dreadnoughts from my left

The fact that such a dynamic relationship is actually possible in the game speaks volumes of what TI is all about. But that also comes with its downsides. It took me around two hours just to clip out and bag all the pieces that came in the box. Setup and explaining the rules took around 30 minutes each - and this was with a group who had familiarised themselves with the principles ahead of time.

For all that there are a lot of rules and pieces to get your head around, the complexity of each part isn't so bad. Pretty much every piece of the puzzle makes sense in isolation, it's the just the whole picture taken together can spin the brain faster than one of my cruisers going down in flames.

Even once we had gone through all of the rules, it still took some hands-on figuring out before we really got to grips with the flow of the game, and I think it was actually pretty near the end before we got a good handle on how it 'should' be played. The game makes many different strategies viable, depending on the race you're playing, but it takes some familiarity to figure them out. As it was, being our first playthrough, we lacked the context to make defensibly sound decisions, but at least everyone was on the same level coming into it.

That's both a good and a bad thing. On the one hand, it rewards repeat play, offering a depth that allows you to experiment and find your stride, getting 'better' over time, which is generally very satisfying. Additionally, if one strategy bores you, there are plenty of alternatives available (play a political or trading race!). The flip side is that, given an average eight-hour duration, getting to play it with any frequency becomes a challenge.

There are also some well-known and well-justified balance issues. Generally, everything is pretty finely designed to avoid weighting advantage to any one player early on. However, one of the Strategy Cards (each player selects one Strategy Card per turn which defines their special action) is a fast and reliable means of scoring victory points - the whole goal of the game - meaning that it becomes 'technically correct', in terms of optimal gameplay, to select this card whenever you are able, regardless of the other choices. If the card is not available, your second choice should always be the 'Initiative' card, which sets you up to take it next turn.

As long as players are aware of this, it's not 'game breaking', but it does suck some of the fun out if you feel compelled to take it all the time, rather than trying to plot and execute a wider strategy. We were aware of this, but still didn't do enough to prevent it throughout the game. The expansions contain some alternative versions of this card which 'fix' the issue, but it's quite a frustrating limitation of the core game, and I'd recommend house-ruling it if that's all you're playing with.

At least the expansion has a normal-sized box

Twilight Imperium is a very deep game with more replay value than I've seen anywhere else. There are so many optional additions and other play styles enabled in both the core game and the expansions that you could play this game over and over without it getting stale. The playtime and dense-if-not-actually-high barrier to entry are marks against it, but, as long as everyone is on board with this from the start, it's actually fine. Just don't let it take you unawares. 

The group that I played with was overwhelmingly enthusiastic about how TI played out and the epic drama it let us build, and seemed interested in picking it up again if there was the chance (unless they were just trying to justify investing eight hours of their time...!). 

So, should you play TI, or even buy it? If you're a fan of 'big box' boardgames in general, it's hard to see you not liking this, since it's a big strategy game on steroids, so give it a go if you ever have the chance. That said, it is a reasonable investment to buy, not to mention store, so I'd say skip purchasing it unless you know and love the game already, or you have a guaranteed audience of (almost) equally enthusiastic people to play with.

Pax Magnifica Bellum Gloriosum

'A Game of Thrones' Board Game Review

Publisher: Fantasy Flight Games
Players: 3-6 (best with 6)
Playing Time: 2-6 hours

Game of Thrones (still better known as ‘A Song of Ice and Fire’ to the Sullied) has been gathering attention over the past four years, as the HBO show has climbed to stratospheric popularity. The game of A Game of Thrones (the board game) has been around much longer than the show, first released in 2003, but was given as second edition in 2011 (either unwittingly or presciently primed to profit from the show's rise).

A Game of Thrones places you at the head of one of six great houses from A Song of Ice and Fire in your own bid to conquer the Seven Kingdoms, capturing seven castles before any of your opponents do the same. The game has you mobilising troops, carefully managing resources, and making and breaking alliances in order to be crowned the victor. And as we know (and you can see what's coming here), when you play the game of Game of Thrones, you win, or you die.

Image featuring the old-style wooden pieces (Image: François Phillip, cc by 2.0)

Cardboard Crowns - The Product
I have bought a lot of stuff from Fantasy Flight Games. Their products are of a consistently high quality, and A Game of Thrones is no exception. It’s a standard ‘big box’ sized game, complete with board, plastic units, a plethora of cardboard counters and assorted cards, all with a great build quality.

Some of the beautiful House cards

What stands out immediately is just how good everything looks. The art is fantastic, particularly on the house cards, which depict several major characters from the books who function as your generals. The one thing that stands out above all others, though, is the board, a beautiful recreation of Westeros in all its bloody glory. As with many games of this size, there are a lot of components, making an alternative means of storage (a bit box or plastic baggies) if not essential, then an important addition.

This doesn't capture the magnificence of the board, but it does show some of the component sprawl. Also, essential Hobgoblin accompaniment.

The Fantastic Taste - The Flavour
It's hard to conceive of someone not having encountered Game of Thrones by now, the show has just become so pervasive. The game does a good job of not really spoiling anything. At most, if you go through the rulebook and dig into the context of the initial setup, there are some implicit spoilers for the first book/season, which, in the grand scheme of things, don't amount to much. I'm a big fan of the series, but I honestly don't think you have to be to enjoy the game. That said, you will get more out of the setting if you are already invested in it, but it's not a make-or-break - I have played with plenty of people not previously familiar with the world.

The game does a very good job of matching style and substance. I’ll talk more about the mechanics below, but it really does make you feel like you’re acting a part in that world, with devious machinations and warmongering bombast alike carried by the gameplay. I don't know whether the game was designed for this intellectual property in the first instance, or whether the game was developed independently of the licence, but I suspect the former. It just captures the vibe too perfectly to believe otherwise.

The Meat & Crackers - The Mechanics
As I said before, A Game of Thrones marries mechanics and mood very well (and you know that, where Game of Thrones and marriage meet, only good things can happen). The biggest part of this is the role of hidden information. During each round, the bulk of the action is split between players secretly assigning orders to their units, and then revealing and executing them. You can bargain all you like with your neighbour, but when it comes down to it, do you trust them not to attack you so you can shore up your resources? Do you use a defence order to hold the line, potentially wasting that action if they don't attack? Or do you lull them into a sense of security and come storming over their borders, knife between your teeth, while they still have their proverbial pants round their ankles?

I’m a sucker for precisely this mechanic. It creates a Diplomacy-esque moment of tension in every round, as everyone flips their orders and assesses the consequences. For me, the blind assignment of orders strikes an interesting balance between pure, calculated strategy, interpersonal relations, and evaluation of the other players' true intentions.

There are various other factors which enhance this process. One player holds the Raven token, which can let them switch out one of their orders after everyone’s have been revealed, potentially a major advantage. The relative influence of your factions define who enacts their moves first. Raid orders are executed first, and a well-placed, well-timed Raid can throw your opponent quite severely, frustrating their plans or advancing your own.

Orders in place.

Another thing I love about this is the scarcity of orders. There are only a limited number of each type, and, if you’re badly positioned, you won’t have access to some of the better ones. This means you have to prioritise your plans, since you can’t ever move or attack from more than three places in a single turn. It’s reasonably subtle, but forces some hard decisions at critical junctures.

The other major mechanic revolves around the influence tracks. These are absolutely crucial to staying on top. These define who has initiative, which orders you have access to, or who wins in a close fight. Every few turns (it’s randomised), these are opened up for bidding, and each player has to blind-bid with their power tokens to secure their spots. Since these Power Tokens are expended and not retained, you have to carefully prioritise which influence tracks you want to go after, or hedge your bets and try to be middling for all of them at best. The problem is, these Power Tokens are also needed to fight off the occasional Wildling threat, which requires everyone to pool resources to avoid mutually bad outcomes. This tension, between urgent, selfish need and the risk of penalties for all is a fantastic dynamic.

The influence system is also one of the minor issues I have with the game. Not that it’s a design issue, I don’t quite think it is, but it is where games seem to be most often decided, and I haven’t quite figured out whether people are just consistently sneaky, or whether it’s just bias from variance.

Every time I have played, there has been at least one round of influence bidding where one player has totally cleaned up, taking the best position and more or less defining the position of all the other players as they choose, which, more often than not, has been enough to close out the game. I don’t think this is just because those players have intelligently hoarded Power tokens (though it is partly so!), as I have hoarded like the lovechild of Smaug and Scrooge McDuck, and still not been able to pull that off. It becomes a little self-enforcing, as if one player gets to that position, though, it can be very hard for someone else to claw advantage back.

One other slight shortfall of the game is the balance of the houses. It’s hard to evaluate holistically, since there are a large number of elements that add up to make the whole, with different generals, starting troops and geographies, but there is definitely some imbalance, necessitating some specific early-game tactics from a couple of the houses to stop themselves being locked out of the game later on. The claustrophobic map, forcing players into each others’ way, combined with different viable strategies for each house, is partly a strength of the game, preventing anyone from being too comfortable, but the Greyjoys, Lannisters and Starks definitely have it worst off, and playing as one of those houses brings its problems. If everyone is on the same page, all’s fair in love and board gaming, but for newer players in particular, it’s something to be wary of.

Playing the Power Game - Accessibility
With the world of A Song of Ice and Fire becoming ever more popular, I can see more players approaching this game. On the whole, it is pretty accessible; a slightly-less cut-throat Diplomacy in a more interesting wrapper. It comes with some general caveats that for ‘big box’ style games, notably their relative complexity and extended play time, but, in general, while the right tactics at the right time are rewarded, the necessities are such that new players are not automatically frozen out. That said, with the balance issues I noted above, a new player in one of those seats faces more of a challenge, although that partly depends on the playgroup.

The View from the Wall - Summary
A Game of Thrones is a lot of fun. It lets you do all the things you want to do while playing in the Game of Thrones sandbox on this scale, with a blend of politics and warfare every bit as devious as the show. It’s definitely best with the full six players, as this has the greatest scope for interaction and politicking, but is perfectly playable with three to five. Some minor balance issues aside, it’s a very solid game. If you’re a veteran of the game, firstly, thanks for reading this far! You should already have been sold on the concept… Secondly, there are a couple of small expansions with different scenarios and setups to shake things up: A Feast for Crows and A Dance with Dragons (though be warned, potential spoilers for those books implied in the setup), which don't seem to have been widely picked up yet.

The Best
Feeling like Tywin Lannister, making the masterful, cut-throat move that puts you ahead of your rivals.

The Worst
Feeling like the Mad King as someone stabs you square in the back.

Rating 
Five heads on spikes

Top 5 Worst Board Games

Games are, at least in principle, a true joy, something which I have argued before is fundamental to human nature. It's generally a healthy and enriching pastime. But that's not universally true, and there is nothing quite as frustrating as being stuck playing a bad game. So here are my top 5 worst games. It should go without saying that, as with any list like this, this is all ill-informed and fully-biased opinion, and while I've tried to justify my selection in each case, your mileage may vary.

Trivial Pursuit

Okay, I'll admit, this one is a bit of a stretch. I've not got that much against Trivial Pursuit per se, and I do enjoy playing it. The problem is, I feel that quiz-based tabletop games are flawed, and this happens to be the most prominent example. Two of the most obvious flaws are limited replay value, as people get to know the questions over time, and the way in which the questions become dated (though that is a great way to release and sell new versions of your game every year! It's as if Hasbro know what they're about). 

Above all, though, my problem is that this type of game depends entirely on what you bring to the table. While all games to an extent reward learning and repeat play, I think quiz games are not learned activity in and of themselves, nor, really, is there much strategy. It's based on what you have in your head combined with the luck of the questions; there's no room for development within the game itself.

Scrabble

This one definitely comes from personal bias. I've never liked Scrabble, as much as I love messing around with words. However clear the guidelines, I find this is a game that does little more than spark endless small disputes, which take up a disproportionate amount of game time to resolve. A 'casual' game should not require a 674-page book to play effectively! Again though, a good way to sell more stuff (Hasbro again...).

The draft of the next Scrabble Dictionary.
Photo credit: Jacob Bøtter, Licensed under Creative Commons

Cluedo

Ah, now we get to the juicy stuff, where I get to start stomping on people's beloved childhood games. I know this is a game for kids, really, and that it's supposed to teach deductive reasoning, but it's just so dull. It has relatively little interactivity, player elimination (which in games that can run for longer than an hour is generally a bad thing), and builds to a usually unsatisfying conclusion.

Ultimately, it's a game where you could guess randomly on your first turn and still stand a chance of winning. If you don't do that, it essentially becomes a giant game of Guess Who, with no real lines of play or satisfying strategy. It's a game that I think you could play on your own with almost no loss in quality and tension, treating it as a logic puzzle, which begs the question, why spend your valuable time with friends and loved ones playing this when there are many finer choices?

Also, can we talk about the terrible theme/mechanics matchup is here? You're walking round a house filled with potential murder weapons with an actual murderer, essentially walking round pointing at people, asking 'was it you?', rather than worrying about the fact that there is a murderer in this spooky house with you. What's more, if your character is the murderer, you still win the game by accusing and outing yourself as the killer. In what world does that make sense?

Risk
This will be a divisive one, I'm sure, much like the game itself. I personally dislike Risk, but accept that there are those that enjoy it. The main reason I'm including it on this list is because the length of play is disproportionate to the depth of the game. Even if you enjoy Risk, there are other games out there which can give you an similar-but-better experience and play in about the same time. Game of Thrones springs to mind, whether you're into the setting or not. Heck, even Twilight Imperium would be better if you have 10 hours to spare (and if you were thinking of playing Risk, you had better!). 

Pictured: Actual Risk players.
Photo credit: Tambako The Jaguar, Licensed under Creative Commons

Those who know me well know that I have no problem with long games (hell, they're usually the ones that I enjoy the most), but I just think if you're going to invest that much time in a game, you want to have enough depth to match, and Risk is a little too one-dimensional and swingy for me, but maybe that's just down to personal preference. Also, for that length of game, I prefer I different approach to player elimination. While in games like Game of Thrones and Twilight Imperium, it is perfectly possible to eliminate other players, doing so is not necessary for the game to end, and doesn't seem to happen all that often. This means that there is more sustained interactivity for everyone who is putting the time in.

This is weirdly apt for the time, but should also 

be the fate of all Risk players everywhere.

Monopoly

This is it. The big one. 

I know I'm not alone in my hatred of Monopoly. It's another one that people often seem to love as a holdover from their childhood. But no, it's a horrible game in just about every way. If I weren't making this list, I could still write a whole post on everything that's wrong with Monopoly and feel like it was time well spent. If you are a parent, or close relative of young kids, please please please don't play Monopoly with them. There is a vast number of more worthy, rewarding, and educational games out there.

Where to start? First, the simple one; as with Risk, the playtime is waaaaay out of whack with the depth of the game. Speaking of depth, here we have Monopoly's big flaw - playing it is absolutely no fun. If you play it 'optimally', it is stagnant - almost entirely non-interactive. You buy every property you land on, do not, under any circumstances, sell them, and only trade them if it's significantly beneficial for you. If everyone's playing that way, it's quite hard to get anywhere. Outside of your turn, there is little or nothing for you to do, leaving you with lots of downtime.

What about strategy? Well, if I told you that the orange properties were the ones which were landed on most often (thanks to their placement in relation to the Jail area), what would you do with that information? Well, nothing really, since you can't control where you land, and you should be buying every property you can anyway. The game is totally lacking in meaningful decision points, which makes it, if you'll pardon the pun, 'strategically bankrupt'.

So say we all...

Then there's the little things. So many variant house rules for this game seem to exist, putting fine money under Free Parking being the most prevalent. Though here's the thing - while that seems like a cool thing to do, making a generally dead space on the board more meaningful, it just makes the game run longer by increasing the amount of money in circulation among the players, and can either bring someone back from a losing position (prolonging the game even further) or further polarise the game by increasing someone's leading position. Way to make a bad game even worse.

I think I've got most of my bile for this game out of my system, for now, so I'll leave you with this gem. According to Hasbro, the longest game of Monopoly every played lasted 1,680 hours. That is two and a third months, or approximately 210 games of Twilight Imperium. Just remember that next time someone invites you to play.

What would you put on this list? Which of these games do you still love? Why do you hate Monopoly? Sound off in the comments.

Gaming Articles

More posts on the way soon, both on GRaBaW and gaming, but in the meantime, I came across a couple of quite nice articles concerning both video and tabletop games, which may be of general interest. 

First - a Rock Paper Shotgun interview with the mighty Charlie Brooker, on his history with videogames, and how they (somewhat inadvertently) made his career. 

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2013/07/15/gaming-made-me-charlie-brooker-part-1/

Second - a nice introduction to board gaming on The Dread Gazebo ('So You Want To Be A Board Gamer'). http://dreadgazebo.net/intro-to-board-gaming-part1/

Pandemic (2013 Edition)

In the first of my reviews of some specific games, I'm looking at an all-time classic: the award-winning Pandemic. 

Pandemic 2013

Publisher: Z-Man Games

Players: 2-4 (five with expansion)

Play Time: 30-40 mins

Pandemic is a co-operative strategy board game in which players take the role of an elite, disease-fighting unit from the Center for Disease Control (CDC) in Atlanta. Using a unique set of special abilities, the team must work together, travelling the globe, treating infections, and conducting research to prevent a series of deadly diseases spreading into a global Pandemic.

I picked up Pandemic a week or so ago, along with the 'On The Brink' expansion. I had heard a lot about it, and had high expectations - which were easily met. My first impression was just how good the game looked - a lot of work has gone into improving various pieces and designs for this 2013 edition.

A large, but manageable number of components (plus: petri dishes!)

Gameplay

Pandemic is a very simple game to learn, and pretty quick to play. Adopting winning strategy and tactics, however, is much more challenging! There is enough scope to vary the difficulty to remain fun and challenging for veterans and newbies alike.

Each turn, a player moves their character, driving or flying round the globe, generally focussing on limiting the damage the diseases are doing. Then, they draw two cards from the Player Deck. These are generally helpful things: city cards, which you need to collect in order to cure the diseases, but which can also be used for fast travel or constructing research centres; or action cards, special one-off but significant advantages. After this, they reveal a number of cards from the Infection Deck, and mark the resultant spread of the disease on the board. 

The complications come in the form of Outbreaks and Epidemic cards. Outbreaks occur when disease in a city has reached saturation point, and spreads out to neighbouring cities (bringing you one step closer to losing the game). Epidemic cards are the fly in the ointment of the Player Deck. When drawn, they speed up the infection rate, and cause revealed city cards to be shuffled and placed on top of the deck. This speeds the game towards its sweaty, fevered conclusion. 

I LOVE these mechanics. The simple-yet-elegant Epidemic mechanic causes the same cities to recur dangerously regularly, presenting an immediate and worrying threat. The one upside is that it at least helps you determine your current threat level, as you know which cards go back on top. The outbreaks can cause chain reactions, which is usually a very quick way to lose the game suddenly. 

Challenge

I've mentioned losing the game a few times. As ever with cooperative games, it's you pitted against the game, and the game is holding all the cards. Too many outbreaks, over-wide spread of one disease, or drawing all of the player cards, cause you to lose. To win, you just need to cure all four diseases. It's that simple. 

The challenge comes in acquiring enough cards of the correct colour, and getting them in the hands of one players. The restrictions on hand size and passing cards around make this difficult, but not too frustrating (without this, the game would simply be too easy). The difficulty is scalable, as you can set the number of epidemic cards in the player deck at the start of the game. Four for beginners, five for normal, up to seven for Legendary.

The challenge actually scales really well - adding more players means that you receive fewer cards at the start of the game. You have more people to control and manage outbreaks across the board, but it's much harder to get the right colour cards into one person's hands to cure the diseases quickly enough. 

The 'On The Brink' expansion adds a few cool ways to ramp up the challenge, such as unexpected disease behaviour, a fifth, mutating disease, or a 'Bio-Terrorist' - one player working against the group to spread a new disease. I haven't really had the chance to try out most of these, but they look to change things up enough to keep the challenge high (if you need it!).

Pretty board, doomed world.

Social

Pandemic is a nice social game. It's easy to learn, quick to set up, and can be played in easily less than an hour. I find that more casual game players, are, understandably, less keen to learn and play some of the epic 3-4 hour 'big box games' (love them though I do!), but Pandemic hits the sweet spot of being suitable for just about everyone. 

The cooperative aspect is always a big tick in this area. Since everyone is working together, new players aren't trying to hold their own against more experience ones. People also strategise as a group, meaning that it's more relaxed, and a bit easier to chat during the game. 

The one downside to this is that there's little to stop experienced players dictating everyone's moves. This pretty much defies the point of the game, though, so I think most reasonable players just won't do this. It's fine to plan together and make suggestions, but everyone has to have their own agency as a player, or you may as well just be playing it solo (though that is surprisingly fun!).

Overall

Pandemic is a very well-crafted game, with some simple but powerful mechanics that give it a real challenging edge with lots of replay value. This is definitely something that both seasoned gamers and those that prefer casual games can enjoy together.

Seriously, the game has won so many awards for a reason...  This is definitely worth picking up, or finding a friend who owns a copy, so you can lose together in style.

Who's It For?
Pretty much everyone!

The Good
Simple, quick game which is accessible to all.

The Bad
You will lose a lot, and want to keep playing. Okay, so that's not actually a negative, but it's really hard to come up with one for this game.

Rating

(Five petri dishes, out of a possible five)


If you want to see more on Pandemic, check out the Tabletop episode:

On The Table

Tabletop games are experiencing a real resurgence of late. I have no doubt that a significant portion of this comes through the Geek & Sundry network, with the incomparably awesome Wil Wheaton's show, Tabletop, currently into its second season. The premise of the show is that Wil gets three or four internet personalities, actors, or the occasional titan such as the legendary game designer, Steve Jackson, into the studio to play a featured tabletop game - usually a board, card, or dice game, and film it. 

I'll admit that, to many people, I think the idea of watching people play through a board game would be the epitome of tedium, but really, the result is surprising. The guests are almost invariably hilarious, or at the very least, plain entertaining, and the show is edited to be sub-30 minutes, skipping through any dull sections. 

The show has been a fantastic means for people to discover new, awesome games to play, but for many, it's been an excellent introduction to the entire format of tabletop games and the fun that can be had playing them. Much like video games, there is a huge amount of variety in style, theme and complexity available in an industry that's been going for a long time (as I noted last time, ancient board games still exist, but the industry has been commercial in the modern world for a while...). I guess I'd classify as a 'tabletop game' anything that requires some number of specific physical components to play. From very straightforward, casual games which can be played in 10 minutes, like Zombie Dice, to well-loved family games like Monopoly, to all-time gaming classics like Settlers of Catan - easy to learn but full of rich possibility, and to epic 'big box' games like Arkham Horror, Game of Thrones, or even the infamous Risk, which can take upwards of five hours to complete. These can be passing diversions with a minimum of effort as part of a relaxed social activity or epic afternoons of machination and scheming against (and with) your friends.

I consider tabletop games to be one of the most readily accessible forms of gaming, and the one that people are most likely to take part in - though much of this comes down to the aforementioned variety in what's available - there are plenty of games that can be learnt in five minutes and played in 10, in contrast to the more complex games which can take that long just to unbox and set up. 

I personally have a huge weakness for these epic 'big box' games, and these have led to some of my most memorable and enjoyable gaming experiences. The flipside to this is that, logistically, it is much, much harder to get to actually play them - they require a much bigger time investment, and sometimes a sizeable amount of space to play.

And this is before fitting any people/glasses round the table...

Actually, I'm not even sure that the top one is showing all of the components...

I also know that they aren't for everyone. I think just about everyone I've played these big-box games with has enjoyed playing them, but I also know that they can drag on beyond what most people enjoy for a game, and therefore can quickly outstay their welcome, which can sour things. 

That said, I'm going to briefly introduce two of my favourite 'big box' games, before suggesting some games that people might enjoy more casually. First up, as mentioned above, is Arkham Horror. You each play an investigator in the HP Lovecraft universe, attempting to prevent the end of the world as a great old one prepares to awake and devour. You must explore the Lovecraftian city of Arkham, closing portals, fighting monsters, and dealing with whatever else happens to come your way. 

I usually describe Arkham Horror to people as 'the game that hates you'. As much as you try to keep enough plates spinning to progressively improve the bleak situation and thwart the old one, the game is the one standing in the corner constantly pulling faces and throwing things at you. The good news here is that all the players are working together - this is a major selling point for me, as lots of people enjoy these longer games more if you're not constantly trying to crush each other! It's nice, too, that the game can accommodate up to eight people, though this slow the pace significantly, and can make it too easy. Luckily, though, there are a bajillion expansions to the game which can ramp up the difficulty even further. To paraphrase Wil Wheaton, I've had more fun losing at Arkham Horror (the game hates you…) than at winning most other games. 

Second is the Battlestar Galactica board game (rounding out a general 'Fantasy Flight games' theme). You definitely get more mileage out of the setting if you're familiar with the (reimagined) TV series, but there's absolutely no barrier to actually playing the game and thoroughly enjoying it if you're not. For those who haven't seen the show, the basic premise is that the remainder of humanity is on the run from the Cylons, a largely mechanical, antagonistic race who have recently demonstrated that certain of their members can take fully realistic human guise. It's replicants in space. 

In the game, you each take the role of one of the characters from the show, with their own special talents and abilities, working together with the goal of reaching safety. Sounds simple, right? Of course it isn't, because this is another game that hates you! Firstly, the Cylons are constantly hot on your tail, and random events will frequently occur where you have to use your fighters and ship weapons to fight them off until you can escape (because you're hella unlikely to win outright). But that's actually the least of your problems, because you're also battling against declining population, depleted fuel reserves and a food shortage. If you run out of any of these, you lose! If Galactica is destroyed, you lose! 

Oh, and did I mention that one or more of your friends are also secretly Cylons? Oh right, I should have said that before! Depending on the number of players, one or two of your group will actually be covert Cylon agents, working to undermine your ongoing battle to safety from within, and you have NO IDEA who they are. It's a wonderful, if horrifying, sensation of paranoia, and leads to some pretty wild accusations and arguments (all in good spirits, for the most part). To add to the drama, halfway through the game, there's a chance that an additional player also finds out that they are a Cylon, even if they weren't one previously. 

Both games have their flaws. Too many players, particularly if a large part of the group is new to the game, can slow an already long game down even further. Secondly, the cooperative elements in both of these games means that experienced players can end up taking over and trying to micro-manage other, newer players. This is bad all round, since it removes agency from some players (undermining the point of their playing in the first place!) which can, fairly, put them off the game altogether. It can also make it just too easy. I'm sure I've been guilty of this at some point, but I desperately try to avoid it!

If you're looking for shorter, more 'quick fun' games, I'd check out Zombie Dice, Tsuro (a beautifully artful and simple game with a great core mechanic) - you can see both in this video. Also Munchkin.

Munchkin is a...relatively...simple card game structured around a given theme (Fantasy setting, Lovecraft, Superspies, Pirates, Superheroes…) which offers a ridiculous, irreverent, and silly slant on more serious games. One of the best parts is stacking different sets together for obscene genre mashups (flying half-dwarf cop with laser vision and a sneaky bastard sword, anyone?).

If you're looking for something with a bit more depth, but without going all-out, I'd check out Settlers of Catan or Carcassonne. Both are total classics and pillars in the modern history of tabletop gaming.

This is another long post, but I can never really do true justice to how fun some of these games can be to play. If you're interested in hearing more on any of them or looking for recommendations to suit your tastes, post in the comments below! Likewise, it would be great to hear about some of your favourite tabletop games, or some of the best experiences you've had while playing.

Look back next Monday for more of my thoughts on all that gaming has to offer us.

The Game-ut of Gaming

It's been a relief to find that, lack of blog updates aside, I'm really not as far behind on GRaBaW as I had thought I was. By the time I get to posting this, there's a good chance I may actually have caught up [edit - I'm not, quite] - I yet again refer you to the beauty of a long-haul flight for actually getting things done. I certainly don't get to fly any distance very often, but I increasingly regard is as a magnificently distraction-free block of time in which to get things done. Or perhaps it's more a sign that I'm too easily distracted when the internet is available. 

I actually want to talk now about something other than books and reading, something which I've talked about on the blog before in some measure. It's one topic that gets me excited in a way that most others just don't, often to an obsessive degree, and while many don't share my fanatic love for it, I  sincerely believe it to be a fundamental aspect of human nature. If you hadn't guessed already, I'm taking about gaming.

I'm not limiting this to video games, though for many, these are synonymous with the term 'gaming'. I'm talking about games of nearly every form - card games, dice games, tabletop games, role-playing games, yes - video games, social games; games of skill, games of chance, games of skill with added variance. 

The tools of the trade

I'm actually stopping short of including sports because I really feel that they fall beyond my remit. It's not that I think they 'don't count' in some sort of definition-snobbery. You could easily argue for each of 'games' or 'sports' to be a subset of the other, and there would be those in both camps who would disagree with such vehemency that you'd quickly find running to be neither a game nor particularly sporting at that moment.

I mentioned above that I consider games to be a fundamental human activity - something that we're  wired to do. I'll talk about why I think that is in a minute (though I'm sure there are many more learned and scientific discourses on the topic). I have on my shelf a copy of 'The Royal Game of Ur', an ancient Sumerian board game. 

Ancient treasures - The Royal Game of UR (British Museum)

First, since I know that the majority of people do not share my overwhelming passion for games, at least consciously, I want to try and back up this contention. Gaming is an ancient pastime that does not appear to have been confined to any particular social class. Plenty of dice have been unearthed which date back to before recorded history. We have literally been playing games for longer than we have been writing. This may be why so many of us today fail to achieve our dreams of authorial fame as we spend some much time playing on the Playstation. Or something. 

The ancient Greeks and Romans had a healthy penchant for games, and many ancient games are still being played today. Surviving examples from China alone include Mah Jong, I-Ching, Chess, Cluedo (okay, perhaps not that last one). If you want to get a sense of the history of social games, check out this  infographic from Jon Radoff (his blog link appears to be dead, so I can't link to the true original source).

A further consideration which occurred to me today - have you ever encountered anyone who truly, completely doesn't like games, in any form? Okay, so this is entirely anecdotal, but I cannot think of anyone. Not everyone is as much of a gibbering fanatic as me (and, thankfully, some of my friends!). Some people don't enjoy playing epic big-box tabletop games which take 5 hours to finish, some people don't see the point in a simple game that comes down entirely to the chance roll of a dice (personally I'm not such a fan of up-chance gambling for this reason); some people love playing casual games on their phone, but wouldn't never dream of picking a fully-fledged console controller. But everyone has some sort of game that they enjoy. 

There are few things I this world that I enjoy as much as sitting down to play a game - but why exactly is that? Why do people take part in these activities which are essentially sideshows from the real world, and, arguably, have no point in and of themselves? I've heard many people disparage gaming in some form or other as a waste of time, one in which they don't understand why people would invest themselves. On one level, I find this a pretty fatuous argument, because you could apply the same thing to quite a significant portion of modern culture (why watch a movie, or read a book? At least part of it comes in deriving enjoyment from media for its own sake), but I do understand where this comes from. There is a difference between spending two hours watching a film and pouring hundreds of hours into living in a massive online world (but one which remains, conspicuously, not the real one), or the aforementioned five hour epic session round a gaming table. 

Generally speaking, I can see a few more obvious reasons that people enjoy gaming. The first is classic escapism - many games involve taking part in an activity which represents something of the real world while being largely divorced from it. This applies notably to video games, roleplaying games and many tabletop games. They can represent entire different worlds, the chance to play at being different people in a different situation which can be a million miles away from our own experiences or comfort zones. This can be so LIBERATING. It can be such a thrilling experience to step outside of your own life for a while. 

This doesn't mean that we're all so sick of their own lives that we're desperately searching for the chance to break free from them - I think instead that this is an impulse which comes from the same place as our love of stories and narratives - the same feeling you go through when you get so lost in a great book or film that it dominates your entire world for a short time. 

Games provide a way for us to make sense of things, and can act as social facilitators, giving people a guaranteed point of shared ground or a framework for an interaction. There are plenty of arguments to be made against this, and again, it's not to say that games should be a go-to substitute for genuine human interaction, but they give us a chance to explore social situations and learn things about each other that we wouldn't necessarily find otherwise. 

This also gives us the chance to act out different social roles. Those that have played group games with me will probably know that my behaviour can be very different depending on what we're playing (for better or worse…). I can be that sneaky, double-crossing, untrustworthy so-and-so if the situation calls for it, which (I hope!) is a long way from my everyday personality. 

On this last point, I'm touching on something that I want to cover in more depth in a future post. Simply put: games teach us things. About each other, as I've alluded to above, but you also just pick things up, as you would from fiction - facts and pieces of information, but also analogous experiences and ways of thinking that can surprisingly often be applied to everyday life.

Big boxes, small sneak preview

So there you have it, a wild flurry of my thoughts around gaming, and why I think it's such a big deal. I want to do a couple more, hopefully shorter, posts, where I can get into some specifics, and pick out some of the things I love about different types and styles of games, as well as some of the games I love and why. Hopefully some of my crazy passion for this has come across, and revealed something about myself.

If you've got your own counterpoints on games, happen to know someone who hates gaming in all forms, or just want to share your favourite games or gaming stories, post in the comments below.