Rules Discussion: King-making

Last week, a buddy of mine mentioned a concept that is somewhat rampant in board games: king-making. As far as I understand it, king-making involves when one or more players have no chance to win in a particular game; in that game, those players may choose (together or individually) to elevate a particular player who has a good chance of winning. Obviously, this is an element of directly confrontational multi-player games; a prime example is Risk, in which one or more players can ally to battle a superior foe. It's also an element of games that involve acquisition of a finite amount of resources or positions to occupy; in games like Stone Age or Alien Frontiers, you can block an opponent by seizing a spot and/or collecting resources before that opponent.

I can't think of many excellent examples right now, but king-making can be frustrating for the front-runner who is playing extremely well, but is squashed by two opponents who think that the fourth player in the mix should be the victor. Based on my experience, this is often not a conscious decision, per se, but rather a response to being in an untenable position. Players never start a game thinking about what they would do if they are losing; yet, when they are position in which victory is nigh impossible, they may make a snap judgment to play some kind of role besides "also-ran"; in other words, when all else is lost, you might as well play the "spoiler."

In my opinion, king-making is a kind of "cheese" because one loses not because he or she made a mistake or just didn't get favorable outcomes, but because of other people and their machinations. I've always thought that the sweetest victory is when one plays his or her best game and wins, especially when all other players have played their best games and there were few, if any, mistakes made by anyone. To win because you played better than a bunch of great players is truly an exhilarating experience, but losing to king-making doesn't feel fun at all. Instead, one feels like victory was robbed from him or her by also-rans so that some other player could win. I suppose this is inherent to gaming, but, unlike many things in life, the self-imposed drive to win should spur every player to play their best, even when they cannot win instead of trying to knock the current leader out. In a way, by being a selfish game player, you are being generous by giving all other players the best competition you can; this makes games fun, whether those games are board, card, video, or sports games. King-making rings of "sour grapes" to me.

Reflecting on Board Game Geek's Top 20 Strategy Games List

I want to write briefly about Board Game Geek's Strategy Game rankings, to which I've linked in this post. As far as I understand it, the Strategy Game rankings are based on user ("Geek") ratings, but I think those ratings are sometimes overly influenced by popularity and not influenced by the quality of the game enough. Here are some random thoughts about the top 20 games:

• Twilight Struggle does belong at number 1! That's NOT disappointing; what was disappointing is that, for a while, Caverna was challenging for the top spot.
  
• Caverna is higher than Agricola, which (besides just being the flavor of the month) doesn't make sense because Caverna is much more of a sandbox game. Sandbox games do require strategy as you need a plan to go in a direction towards victory, but Agricola seems to constrain the player more than Caverna. In my opinion, constraints challenge players to be creative and to truly consider possibilities and choose the most efficient, expeditious path. Thus, I would put the non-sandboxy Agricola over the sandbox Caverna, given that both games are otherwise strikingly similar (i.e. worker placement, resource gathering, and resource conversion to items that score victory points).
  
• Puerto Rico is at number 5, which redeems this list because though the game does have a bit of a linear progression of how roles are played, this game really challenges players to "get on the train" of progression at the right time and to put your opponents into a position of not playing certain roles because they know that those roles would benefit you.
  
• Conversely, I don't believe that Power Grid should be at 11 without having games like Ticket to Ride up there with it. Call it personal opinion, but Power Grid isn't that much more strategic than Ticket to Ride and is actually quite less accessible. Ticket to Ride earns its classic status because it can be played as strategically and cutthroat as you want.
  
• Caylus is still hanging on at 15, but many reviews I've read have rendered that game outmoded by subsequent worker placement games that superseded it. Despite that, this proves that older, "simpler" games can win out over the new kids in town.
  
• I really enjoy 7 Wonders, but does it really belong at number 16 for Strategic Games? I would definitely put it high up there for Family Games...

As you go further down the list, the games listed make less sense. I suppose that my disappointment lies in the fact that the user votes are counted from the beginning and remain, which means that though some games stay on the list based on the strength of past votes, newer games may pass them because people are conscious of the voting system and what it takes to vote one game over another. I don't know how to rectify this, but many older games should remain at the top; those games didn't become less strategic over time. I would argue that though one may argue that older games were "simpler," they were also eminently strategic and tactical. Look at chess, which should really be near the top of this list (though it's considered an "abstract" game on BGG).

Board Game Cleanup 3: My Firm Guidelines

As I have mentioned in my two previous posts, I try to be judicious and wise about which games I bring into my house. I have some rudimentary personal rules based on a combination of my faith in Christ and my own sensibilities of what is appropriate for me and my family.

For the sake of brevity, here is a list of my rules, which aren't necessarily hard and fast rules as much as firm guidelines that inform my selection process:

• No nudity or coarse language
  I will not tolerate either profanity in any game text or nudity in any game imagery; any game that has these elements will not exist in our household.

No religious content that is antithetical to Christ
Sometimes, this is a judgment call, but a good example is if a game involves offering money to a deity, even a make-believe one.

No bloody imagery
This is more related to certain violent acts portrayed in art, such as impalings, body explosions, graphic beheadings, maimings, and the like. Sometimes, this is also a judgment call, but I have replaced art for images that were "too bloody." I also reject games that have actions that result in those outcomes.

No overtly demonic imagery or acts that invoke demons
The criteria for identifying this is actually quite narrow; I'm referring to outright occultish depictions, such as pentagrams, ritual sacrifices, and portrayals of creatures that were meant to be demons. Also, I rule out in-game actions that involve summoning demons or devils, or appeasing such entities. (Note: I don't reject games if demons are portrayed as "demons" and meant to serve as antagonists).

No positive portrayals of drug use
I don't think that a game that assigns any positive value to illegal or narcotic drug use is "family-friendly."

As I said, these are firm guidelines that are open to assessment; in other words, I try to investigate the game before I reject it. That said, I do lean towards rejection and try not to justify buying games if justification requires long-winded excuses; for example, if a game allows a protagonist to behead people, I wouldn't justify it by saying that the "people were bad, and so they deserved it." Of course, you, the reader, may have your own convictions, but these are mine.

If you would like, please feel free to offer your own convictions and interpretations of the Bible in the Comments section. I'm always willing to engage a cordial commenter, and I have been known to change my mind if a fine point is made.

Board Game Cleanup 2: 7 Wonders

Two years ago, my oldest son asked for a certain game for Christmas that he had seen on sale at Target. At the time, he and his brother were learning about the seven wonders of the ancient world, such as the Colossus of Rhodes, the Library at Alexandria, and the Pyramids of Giza. Initially, I knew little of the game, but I started reading reviews about it and was somewhat intrigued, but not entirely enthusiastic. Anyway, I proceeded to watch a playthrough done by Rodney Smith at Watch It Played and found the game to be acceptable from a gameplay and content standpoint, so my wife and I purchased it. Needless to say, my son was happy to receive it.

As some of you gamers out there may have guessed even before seeing the images I inserted in this entry, the game was 7 Wonders. Like many board games and card games out there, 7 Wonders is a turn-based card game, but it is divided into three distinct periods of technological development called "ages." During each age, players can deploy resource-generating cards and (with the correct resources) build structures through a kind of drafting component: each turn, you choose a card from a hand and then pass the hand to the person on your left (during Ages 1 and 3) or your right (during Age 2). As you establish your resource base and build structures and technologies, you can also choose to develop your Wonder, which is one of the seven wonders (or others, if you purchase the expansions). Without going too much into the rules, the object of the game is to score the most points (no surprise), but each turn is fast-paced because there is no down time waiting for someone to decide what to build; everyone decides at the same time.

In any case, there are numerous reviews and playthroughs out there. Needless to say, 7 Wonders is exceptionally fun and a favorite game of my family, but (as with Eminent Domain) I discovered two cards that were somewhat questionable with their art: Baths and Altar. In the Baths card, we see a depiction of the backs of two nude women preparing to bathe; in Roman times (or probably in Japanese onsens), I'm sure that it was commonplace for only women to bathe without clothing in the women's bath. In the Altar card, there is a priestess in a gossamer-thin frock sacrificing something to a deity; the garment suggests that there is nothing else under that garment.

Baths: an Age I card

Both cards depicts situations that may have happened in certain historical periods, but, as a father in an oversexed world, I don't understand why such art would be necessary to convey the concepts of baths or altars. In my opinion, even relatively sterile images of a bath or an altar in isolation would be suitable. Instead, the game producers saw fit to feature scantily-clad women (if clad at all). If anything, such images could send a young boy's imagination racing, and these games are played by boys and men (as well as some girls and women). What were the game illustrators thinking? What were they really trying to convey? Honestly, I'm not sure and it really doesn't matter what was intended; I just know that I'm not comfortable with those images in a family game.

With that in mind, I did what I've done with my other games: I found replacement art that I cropped in Photoshop and pasted over the original art. I don't have the image files of my replacement art, but I can say that the image I used for the Baths was a modern-day photograph of a Roman bath with a grainy filter to give it a textured look. For the Altar cards, I chose the image of an Israelite high priest with an ephod standing before an altar. Taking some care to crop the images to fit, I pasted the images to the cards and placed the cards into sleeves. With decks of sleeved cards, any modified card blends into the other cards. However, I did make the mistake of not adding indicative numbers to the pasted images, which show for what numbers of players cards should be used (for example, cards marked "6+" are to be included in six-player games, as well as all cards marked with lesser numbers).

Altar: an Age I card

As you may have gathered, my immediate reaction to finding those cards wasn't to throw away or sell the entire game. Instead, I thought about how significant the cards were. Because the images were on four cards that were only small parts of the gameplay, I felt that image alteration would be sufficient. I try to be judicious in purchasing games for myself and my family; if a game has strategic or tactical elements that are personally off-putting or morally offensive, I don't buy the game. Likewise, if I know that the game has some visual elements that are somewhat racy or inappropriate, I won't buy the game. Would I have purchased 7 Wonders, though, if I had known those images were in the game? Perhaps, especially if I had a plan for cleaning the game of those images.

Let me conclude with my opinion of sexuality in games: I don't see the need for it, whether it's suggestive imagery or some tactic that involves sexual attraction or seduction. I also don't see the need for scantily-clad women (or men, to some extent); having such images in games trains boys to look at women as objects. What I'm saying seems like a blanket statement (I have spent much time pondering this issue and could write at length about it, but I won't write on end for brevity's sake), but I think that our world has a major issue with objectifying women and yet holding women to impossible physical standards. Why have images of near-naked women in a board game? My advice: be wary and be prepared to reduce or eliminate anything untoward lest our children be shaped by the influences of the world at-large.

Board Game Cleanup 1: Eminent Domain

As some of my readers know, the focus of RetroBeliever has shifted from video games to board games, mostly because I try to pull my family away from the screen and entice them to the table, but also because I really like board games. Of course, this doesn't mean that I like every game. I do my best to investigate games to determine if they are truly "family friendly," which means that I look for inappropriate images and language, over-the-top violence, the prominence of magic (which is a case-by-case distinction), and for rules that define players as evil characters. As long as my children are involved, I strive to minimize those elements in my house. This has resulted in my having to turn my back on some games that many people consider "classic," such as Magic: The Gathering, Netrunner, or Terra Mystica (all well-designed games with excellently balanced rules, but with elements with which I am not comfortable).

However, some games slip through the cracks and I have to deal with small instances of elements at which I cringe. My first case in point: Eminent Domain. Based on my research, Eminent Domain is a deck-building game with a variable phase structure much like Puerto Rico, but with a science-fiction theme. By most accounts, Eminent Domain is highly regarded, so I purchased it based on reviews and a playthrough produced by the always top-notch YouTube channel Watch It Played and its host, Rodney Smith (link to his tutorial is here). As I opened the box and its contents and sleeved the many cards that come with the game, I happened upon a card called Artificial Intelligence, which lets a player take any two Role cards from the Central Display into his or her hand. Within the context of the game, this is a useful card that optimizes your Role phase, but the art is what caused me to pause...

Artificial Intelligence... Before mod

Now, from a science-fiction standpoint, I don't see the point in a buxom female-looking robot, but such art is sadly endemic to the genre. By itself, the robot illustration is not that racy, though its chest size is suggestive, but what caught my eye is the expression of the engineer behind the robot. To me, the card smacked of innuendo, which I'm sure my mature readers can grasp. As soon as I spotted this card, my mind jerked into Yellow Alert. I pondered if I really should play with a card that has a voluptuous female robot because I wouldn't want such images to fill my sons' young, developing minds. 

Well, I weighed my options, and I'm sure that some conscientious parents have ruminated on these choices, as well. One option is to sell the entire game outright, which may be the best decision when inappropriate elements are pervasive; I sold and threw away my Magic cards because of various convictions (which I discussed in a past blog post and article). A second option is to remove the offensive card or game piece from the game; I did this with one particular card (The Califf's Favorite) from Expansion 2 of Alhambra because the card portrays a concubine (which opens up a can of worms for my boys). This option is acceptable when elements are minor or unnecessary to the game.

Yet, there is also a third option that I have taken a few times: alter the card or game element. After some thought, I decided to take this route with the Artificial Intelligence card, so I scanned the card and altered it in Photoshop. With some creative use of Clone Stamp, I softened curvature, broadened the waist, and rendered the she-bot a bit more gender-neutral. Then, I printed the card and cut out only the torso of the robot. I pasted the torso over the original card art and I ended up with something like this...

Artificial Intelligence... After mod

In a card sleeve, my patch work is not that noticeable and the card doesn't bulge on the table. Thankfully, this was the only semi-objectionable art in the game, so I only had to alter this card. Indeed, I took a risk with changing the card because a botched change can mar the card, but I think my fix was adequate. Now, I can play Eminent Domain worry-free without wondering how my boys might view this card. (In deference to the original artist, I am merely sharing my modification of the card for my personal use. This is not meant for distribution for personal gain.)

Inspired by this recent modification, I am kicking off a series of posts about other mods I've made in order to minimize uncomfortable content. To you, the reader, I also invite you to contribute in the Comments some modifications or removals you've completed to make board games more family-friendly. Feel free to share suggestions. Of course, there may be folks out there that absolutely disagree with such modification, and there may be folks that feel I am too conservative. To you all, I must say that you are free to have your opinions, just as I am free to protect my kids.