What to Do If... A Game is Just So Adorable?!

Castles of Burgundy is widely considered one of the best strategy games in the board game hobby and designer Stefan Feld's masterpiece. Ranked at 19 on Board Game Geek's website, Castles of Burgundy combines dice, tile placement, and lots of ways to score to form a tight puzzle of a game with just enough player interaction not to feel like you are playing Solitaire on an airplane tray table. If you have not had a chance to play it, get online, find a copy of the game, and spend the requisite $30 to buy it right now... Don't wait - - it's worth your time.

Now, if you have played it before, or if you just received it through Amazon Prime shipping and you are punching out the tiles, you know that this game is as homely as it is well-designed. With sketchy (literally) art, floppy card stock, and enough beige to make a medieval monk blush. Oh, and must I mention that the theme is as pasted-on as your novelty version of Monopoly? For as much craft and care was infused in the rules and tactics, very little emphasis was placed on the art design as if Mr. Feld truly didn't want anything beautiful to distract the players. Castles of Burgundy is as vanilla as it gets (but I believe that was intentional, even by early 2000s game art standards).

Fast forward twenty or so years to 2022. Art standards and production values continue to surge upward. Kickstarter, Gamefound, and other crowdfunding sites are replete with games that feature meticulously molded figures, vivid card art, and high-quality paper with just the right rigidity and thickness. One would be hard-pressed to find any (successful) game on a crowdfunding site that does not boast incredible illustrations and highly detailed miniatures. Likewise, established game producers like Asmodee, Z-Man Games, and Gale Force Nine Games (I'm kind of excluding Queen Games and Alea/Ravensburger here... They sometime err on the side of bland) undeniably pursue artistic excellence when it comes to board games. Conversely, I can only imagine the number of games that may have some ingenious mechanics or brilliant game design that end up falling to the wayside because the designer (possibly Queen Games or Alea/Ravensburger) did not have the business acumen or foresight (which would be mildly ironic for a strategic game designer not to predict marketplace failure) to hire an artist who was not her cousin or dodgy neighbor with a community college arts degree (not to denigrate people with community colleges). To state it simply, in the world of board games, art tends to cover the warts of mediocre game design much more than superior game design obfuscates cheesy drawings.

In any case, that is not the precise point of this article, though the point is still relevant. Actually, I am looking at those board (and card) games that possess an affable quality -- a certain je-ne-sais-quoi --that I can only identify as "cute." If you saw these kinds of games, you'd know what I am talking about. Here's a classic example: Carcassonne. Yeah, that tile-laying game with the "meeples" that, for a time, became ubiquitous as other games appropriated these pieces. There is just something so adorable about putting a meeple on a bucolic field tile as if it is having a rest. If you look closely at the tile, you might spy sheep frolicking in the countryside. Another cute game (in my estimation) is Boss Monster. I relish looking at those 8-bit-rendered heroes and villains; it sends me back to those days when I would play Legend of Zelda on my Nintendo, and then slam my controller down in frustration as Link died due to some suspect maneuver (Okay, calm down, calm down...). A lot of the Tiny Epic games are lovable with their tiny zombies, motorcycles, and weapons. Have you seen the illustrations of Belfort or Harbour (goodbye, Tasty Minstrel Games)? I even find the animeeples of Agricola scrumptious with those sheepish little sheep and the cows that look so at-home in your house (or in your Cooking Hearth).

There are a ton of examples of cuteness in board games, whether it is a small aspect of the game or a greater part of its design (Bunny Kingdom or Stuffed Fables, anyone?). Sadly, though, cuteness has a way of covering up the gangrene underneath... Okay, that's a bit extreme, but it is similar to the point I made earlier: beauty covers up poor game design (perfume on a pig?) much more effectively than great game design covers up blandness. Some games can win you over with something that you could figuratively hug and squeeze with overflowing affection. It is only when you have purchased such a game, unpacked it, and played it to realize that you have been seduced by cuteness. So, what do you do if a game is just so adorable? Here are my tips...

If you haven't bought it, research it.

This is a no-brainer, but sometimes we have to pause, take a beat, and think about the game. There are quite a few games that look great on the store shelf. You may examine the board game box and feel drawn to a bunny or a teddy bear on the cover. Look up the game on Board Game Geek immediately on your smartphone (Does anyone still have dumb phones? If so, I salute you!). Read a few reviews. Then, convince yourself that the cute game is not that great. When all else fails, take a picture of that lovable element on the box, print it, frame it, and hang it in your game room as a trophy signifying your ability to overcome a questionable decision.

If you already bought it, be open to liking it.

I know there are folks out there that would have no compunction about listing cute games on eBay after one play, but I recommend playing the game a few times to determine truly if you do not like it. Just because a game is not "good" does not mean that you would not like it. If you browse Board Game Geek's website enough, you may discover numerous reviews for pretty, yet perfectly mediocre games. Let's face it: if the game is adorable enough, you might find it in your heart to overlook its flaws and embrace the art.

If you bought the game and just loathe it, consider this...

What about keeping the "cute" part of the game and discarding the rest? Maybe you can cannibalize the tokens for another game, cut the pages or cards you like and make a fun scrapbook, or even make up your own rules. I have heard stories of people rewriting the rules for a game or creating a new game with parts from another. Personally, I have been known to take the gorgeously detailed coins out of one game and use them for another.

***

Ultimately, to quote some random Star Wars character, "do not be seduced by the Dark side." A lot of game producers put great effort, time, and market research into crafting games that people would buy. If they are truly smart, they do their best to capture the "casual" gamer; if they can convince the "average" consumer that a cute game is a must-have item, then the game producer has done well and can be gainfully employed. She can spend her earnings at Starbucks or pay next month's rent. And, in a way, you can feel good that you have helped a starving game designer survive one more month.

When it comes down to it, game design and production is a business and people are just trying to feed themselves and/or their families, so the workers in this industry endeavor to sell games, even if they are duds with a pretty coat of paint. Be discerning, take a breath, and allocate times towards researching. I told my sons the same thing about dating: instead of jumping into a relationship, observe, take the time to know the girl, and pray. Of course, if you can ignore the warts and psychoses, maybe a "cute" game is all you need. Just be prepared to deal with a lot of baggage (am I still talking about dating?).

What to Do If... You're Not Good at Board Games

Full disclosure: I'm not that great at board games. When I used to have regular board game club meetings at a previous company, I kept track of each game and how each player placed. Overall, I averaged a place of 3.5, which put me between third and fourth place. Sure, sometimes, I managed to win a game, but, more often than not, I was an also-ran. To be fair, I often had to teach the games I brought, which meant I was distracted and found myself demonstrating moves more than choosing the best move. That notwithstanding, when it came to games with which my group was familiar, I did not win so many.

Of course, over the years, my enthusiasm for the hobby has compelled me to read articles about strategies and tactics for specific games and for games in general. I have also played a wide array of titles running the full gamut of diverse game mechanics, and I've faced numerous opponents from which I learned much. Yet, I'm not that great at board games.

I'm just fine.

What do you do if you are not good at board games? I must admit that this is something I'm figuring out even now, but I would like to share with you my thoughts and what has helped me improve. First, here are the obvious solutions:

Read Game Articles
The first tip is one I already mentioned: search for your favorite games and you will find articles from both professional and amateur writers. Many articles are penned by enthusiasts on sites such as Board Game Geek, but some are posted by writers on video or board game sites. Though many of these articles are reviews that discuss basic rules and win conditions, you can glean key points, such as general strategies,  rules that can be exploited to create favorable game conditions, and even a few of the common paths too victory. More importantly, you can more easily find those games that suit you either from a mechanical or a thematic standpoint.

Play Games that Cover Well-Known Mechanics
If you browse Board Game Geek long enough, you may discover such mechanics as "worker placement," "area control," "deck management," "deck builder," and so on. These terms may be new or familiar to you, but if you seek the exemplars of each mechanic type, you can improve your overall gameplay. An acceptable place to start is with gateway games: Ticket to Ride covers route-building and set collection, Carcassonne (or Kingdomino) involves area control, Stone Age incorporates worker placement, and Settlers of Catan is an amalgam of set collection, negotiation, and area control. Beyond that, there are Next Step games like Dominion (deck-building) and 7 Wonders (hand-passing) that can provide the learner a grounding. By playing these games, you learn the winning tactics for mechanics that prevail in hundreds, even thousands, of games out there. Consider this: strip away the theme of a game and you may find that a lot of games are very similar (did I say that?).

Learn a Few Games Really Well
You can also assume the approach of learning a few games deeply, even taking a scholarly approach toward absorbing the vagaries of those games. One striking example of this is chess, which has an innumerable amount of books and articles dedicated to analyzing the game and the matches played by its very best players. Even modern games like the aforementioned gateway games and long-lived staples like Agricola, Puerto Rico, Twilight Struggle, and Castles of Burgundy have much material that you can research and play. In any case, as you dive more into your game of choice, you pick up on the rhythms of play and what combinations work.

Ask Questions In the Local Store or Online
Sometimes, the shopkeeper or locals at your friendly neighborhood game store can be an exceptional source of information about certain games, especially ones that are demonstrated or played there. If you are inclined to be social, visit the store and ask questions. I recommend starting with the shopkeeper, who may know about the game you want to learn. In addition, you can post questions on websites like Board Game Geek. With the panoply of posts on Board Game Geek, you have enough fodder to occupy you for months just to dissect one game.

Watch Games or Play-through Videos Online
This one's obvious, so I won't dwell on this suggestion, but I do recommend examining several channels on YouTube or any other video site before giving up. Note that there are a lot of sub-par game channels and commentators who do nothing to help, so try out several channels or shows before finding a channel that helps you learn a game.

Join a Group of Enthusiasts...
Just as chess scholars focus their time and energy on that game, you can specialize in any game, particularly ones that boast a robust player community with (or without) tournament structures. Keep in mind that most players in these groups are experienced and competitive, so your insertion into, and involvement in, these groups largely depends on a combination of the kindness and inclusivity of the members and your tolerance for their social shortcomings (i.e., you may have to put up with trash talkers or jerks).

... Or Start Your Own Enthusiast Group...
If you are averse to spending your precious time with strangers and/or possible ne'er-do-wells, then gather a few of your interested friends to commit to playing one game week-in and week-out. One example about which I've heard is Agricola (or Caverna for the more modern gamers); there are groups that meet consistently just to play Agricola because the game start is highly variable with a plethora of different occupation and minor improvements decks to use or even mix. The most significant advantage of starting a group with your own hand-picked friends and acquaintances is that you can rest assured people will (generally) relate well.

... Or Even Play Solo
There are probably hundreds of games that you can play on your own (even though board setup for a game you are playing alone may dissuade you from doing it), and there are even tablet versions of games that you can play to acquaint yourself with the games better. However, you may not have realized that ANY game can be a solo game if you're willing to play as more than one player. Much like boxers using shadow boxing as a training method, you can pick up on game intricacies playing against yourself.

Now, let's discuss the nitty-gritty:

Know a Game's End Conditions
Whenever I teach a game, I make sure to cover game-ending conditions because players need to know how a game can end (or be forced to end). Players are often surprised at how quickly a game has ended because they were not cognizant of the end conditions. This surprises me, in turn, because I commit an appreciable amount of time to explaining the end conditions, but even I forget from time to time. By knowing the end conditions, you can control the tempo of a game; just think inductively about the events that lead to the end and either make them happen sooner or later.

Know a Game's Win Conditions
Whenever I teach a game, I also cover win conditions because players need to know what is required to win. To become better at a game, you must know how to win; this informs all of your in-game decisions. This is not overstating the obvious; I am usually shocked when people do not spend the time to acquaint themselves with how many possible ways they can win. You also have to consider how win conditions do not always mean end conditions; just because you end a game early does not mean you win, so know the differences between the two types of conditions.

Understand Your Pieces
Take stock of the in-game items and tokens you have at the start of the game. What can they do? More importantly, how can each item expedite reaching the win or end condition of a game?

Consider How Your Starting Position Differs from Others
In some games, each player has abilities that are unique compared to other players; usually, these asymmetrical powers bend a game rule or provide some kind of advantage. Know how your abilities differ from your opponents and exploit the difference. Also, know how your opponents can accomplish feats you cannot. Instead of trying to beat your adversaries using their strengths, attack their weaknesses with your strength.

Look for Powerful In-Game Interactions
Whether it's card combinations, sequences of chosen actions, or even how different player abilities intermingle, study how you can use game elements in combination to create advantageous turns of play. Remember that though one card or ability may be highly effective in isolation, look for ways to boost the effect with another card or ability. Then, write down the combo and research it after the game is over.

Interfere with Players Only at Key Moments
There are aggressive game players out there who seize every opportunity to interfere with other people's plans. Conversely, there are players who, though not necessarily passive, are more patient and wait a bit too long to act. This is more easily said than done, but try to balance executing your plan with obstructing your opponent. For example, in Ticket to Ride, there are "choke" routes where, if taken by someone else, a short connection between two cities can be blocked, compelling one or more players to find a way around the choke point. Identifying these one- or two-car routes and taking one or two turns to play trains on these routes can stymy an opponent's efforts to connect. Look for such moments in the game. It may take a session or two to discover them; when you do, catalog them in your mind for future plays.

Find the "Broken" Card/Token/Item and Exploit It
Occasionally, a game might feature one or more items that afford you a profound advantage over the other players. When that item appears, emphasize acquiring it. Do not worry about how fair or unfair the item is - if it's supported by the rules, use it.

Maximize the Actions You Take Each Turn
Many games rely on an action mechanic that involves taking one action per turn, but also allows for more actions depending on specific conditions. One example of this is the X-Wing Miniatures Game, which affords each ship one action after the maneuver; yet, in that game, using linked actions or upgrades to increase your action economy creates advantageous situations for your pilots, especially if you can get a Focus token AND secure a lock in the same phase. Find in-game items or elements that allow for multiple actions when players normally take one. By doing so, you optimize your action economy while your opponent flounders in keeping up.

And, For the Nice Players Out There... Strive to Win!
One of my quirks (failings?) as a game player (besides the fact that I usually have to teach people while playing AND keep the rules straight for everyone, which makes me prone to making poor decisions for the sake of educating others) is that I don't like watching people lose. Maybe it's because I hate the feeling of losing and empathize with people when they feel it, or maybe it's because I like spending time with happy people. What I try to consider always is that when someone is playing a game against me, I create the best experience for him by playing to the utmost of my ability and aiming to win. This makes the game challenging for your opponent, who most likely wants to be challenged. If you happen to be a kind and gentle person, the most wonderful gift you can give your opponent is trying to beat him or her. People DON'T have fun when their opponents are pushovers. In this way, to be truly loving, you have to destroy your opponent!

I'm sure there are other tips out there for the quasi-mediocre player who wants to improve their gameplay. I just continue playing games and enjoy them as beautiful distractions that have stunningly-crafted pieces, gorgeous art, and multifariously complex rules and systems that one must labor to master. Each game is a journey that should be relished for what it is, win or lose. Then again, it does feel better to be victorious than to learn from defeat, even though the learning part has a more significant impact over time. Personally, being "just fine" at games is fine enough for me.

Is Chess Really the Best Board Game Ever?

(Note: in this article, I capitalized Chess, Go, and Shogi, even though they are not often capitalized in writing, to not only pay homage to these games, but also to have their names stylistically resemble the names of modern games.)
In the United States, as many of you know, most people who do not play board games as a passionate hobby have heard of such games as Monopoly, Sorry, Clue, Risk, Connect Four, Stratego, Candy Land, Chutes (or Snakes) and Ladders, Checkers, Backgammon, and, of course, Chess. Some of them are fine games even now, but some are outmoded and/or involve no sense of agency or decision-making whatsoever (I'm looking at you, Chutes and Ladders), yet Chess seems to retain that mystique as being a "classic" game. To be sure, Chess is so widely played and has such longevity that it has been venerated to "best game of all time" status by many folks, at least as far as I can tell. You could probably ask any person on the street about the best board game of all time, and I would not be surprised that Chess is mentioned more than once.

The funny thing about Chess, though, is that for all of its history and (clearly) international recognition as a game for really smart people who make a profession out of studying and playing it, finding people who really ENJOY Chess can be a very challenging task. Indeed, there are grandmasters, wannabe grandmasters, local tournament winners, and even faux-protegies who fancy Chess. These same folks plunge headfirst into study, memorizing openings and closings, dissecting past matches, and learning so much about the vagaries of the game that they come to see in-game patterns of play that are only visible to a true Chess enthusiast. I believe that it is because of this level of erudition and perceived difficulty that people somewhat begrudgingly acknowledge Chess as the best game of all time; some people even use Chess as a determiner of how intelligent or strategic a person is, which is incredible for a game to be vaunted to that status.

It is these same folks that underscore the greatest challenge presented to the would-be player of Chess: to be good at it, you have to study and study and practice and study. This may be true of many pastimes and even other board games, but Chess elevates this requirement to a very high level such that only staunch enthusiasts really enjoy Chess. I suppose that a degree of mastery of anything both dictates if one enjoys that thing and how much he or she enjoys that thing with other people. If you know how to play some tennis, you will enjoy tennis with people of similar skill level, practice habits, determination to improve, and play experience. However, if you are a casual weekend warrior who plays against a former Division I college tennis star, both you and the almost-pro would not have a fun time (unless the would-be pro is sadistic and relishes trouncing sad-sack casuals). In any case, practice and study (and even, dare I say, natural ability) are key to enjoying tennis, Chess, or whatever, but some pastimes require it more than others (such as Chess).

This leads me back to the question posed in the title of this post: is Chess the best board game of all time? Well, let's splay out its credentials: simple rules for movement and attack, elegant board and piece design, wide-ranging global availability and recognition, centuries of tried-and-true competitive play, and the accessibility of volumes of scholarly study of which any student of the game can avail himself or herself. Add to that the myriad of rebadged sets (Lord of the Rings Chess, Civil War Chess, Mario Chess, and so on!), levels of competition, and variations (Shogi!) and you have a venerable game that is appreciated and adored the world over... Yet I contend something that a few others have suggested...

Chess is outdated, abstract, inaccessible to the casual UNLESS he or she plays against another casual player, limited in gameplay, and so exclusive that you must commit serious study (or possess immense, natural, genius-level skill) to be remotely competitive.

So... let me unpack that recognizably controversial statement. First of all, Chess is a centuries-old game, which is fine except that, especially in the last, say, 30 years, there has been a wealth of deep, rich board games and card games that have been developed and published that are replete with theme and fluff (i.e. little theme nuggets that work within the rules to reinforce game play) that enliven such games. To find out more, simply navigate to www.boardgamegeek.com and browse the top 200 strategy games.

Secondly, as I pointed out earlier, you have to dedicate time and focus to compete in Chess, which makes it less out-of-the-box playable against semi-skilled players than a game like Ticket to Ride or Carcassonne. Sure, both of these games have randomness, and Chess does not, but I contend that it's only enough randomness to give the inexperienced player a little boost. Some have decried randomness as a "crutch" that can punish expert play, but there is a skill to mitigating randomness. For example, in the X-Wing Miniatures Game, your attack and defense dice rolls may stymy your good flying and firing-arc aiming, but you can improve your chances with well-chosen upgrades that allow for re-rolls or by selecting the right action to perform, such as getting that Focus token that increases your hit percentage per die from 50% to 75%. Dealing with randomness is a skill set that is necessary in life, and it is something absent in Chess (which is NOT an ironclad argument against Chess, per se, but it does reinforce my point that Chess does not really support the inexperienced player).

Thirdly, even though computers have calculated the millions of possible moves in Chess, in practice, as the game state progresses, your options are very limited. For instance, after six moves, the board is in a state in which there are more horrible moves that can lead to capture than excellent moves (or even harmless moves) that allow you to advance your pieces. Though some may contend that this is a GOOD thing which compels people to find the true value of any piece and weigh its sacrifice against better future position or (even better) baiting an opponent to expose a strong piece for capture, that feeling of agency is illusory. To me, Chess has always felt like it's "on rails," which is an inexorable path; eventually, there is going to be a bloodbath that manifests itself in a rapid cascade of sacrifices until one player ends up with more materiel. Funnily enough, this substantiates my point because, ultimately, there is only ONE victory condition in Chess: the capture of the king, which is in and of itself quite limiting.

Lastly, let's discuss the exclusive nature of Chess with more depth. Once again, if you do not study and practice, you are nothing more than a casual player who knows the rules, but little else. There's nothing wrong with that... until you encounter a friend or co-worker who is looking for an opponent and is found wanting when she realizes that she can utterly defeat you every time. Even worse than that, though, is the almost-fact that unless you are somewhat equal to your opponent, the game is not really fun for either of you. Now, some may point at competitive Chess and say that Magnus Carlsen must not be having fun when he's defeating other "lesser" grandmasters, but the difference between him and those players is (and this is my somewhat unresearched contention) miniscule. We're talking about minute differences in skill level; on a "bad day," Carlsen could lose to any of those players. That's why games between grandmasters involve multiple matches; on any given day, one grandmaster, at least in theory, can beat another one. Anyway, unless you're competing at a grandmaster level, any appreciable skill level difference can render Chess un-fun for the lesser player (unless the lesser player is learning actively through defeat). That, primarily, is why Chess is exclusive, but I can also point out that it always plays as a two-player game unless you have a wonky four-player version of Chess (which is super-fun, actually).

Now that I've stated all of this, I will venture to guess that you, the reader, are mentally shooting down each argument with these thoughts:

• Just because Chess is old doesn't mean that it's outdated or awful.
• I hate many games because of the randomness; card draws, dice rolls, and other randomizers have ruined game sessions for me.
• Randomness is indeed a crutch and you're a sad individual who needs crutches to beat better players.
• Of course you have to study and practice! Every sport and worthwhile game is like that!
• I don't play competitive Chess anyway. I just enjoy it.
• Chess is eminently accessible. It's played all over the world and is much cheaper than most of your fancy board games (particularly X-Wing!).

Here's my controversial response to all of these statements: you're absolutely right! I cannot refute any of these statements, which makes me think that much of what I've proffered is a personal position and NOT a statement of fact, so let me try this statement:

There are so many beautiful, strategically-deep, slightly random games out there that allow people to exercise creativity and guile without the "on rails" feeling of Chess and WON'T break your budget.

One example of this is Agricola. For $45 USD, you get a worker-placement game that is only as random as the stage cards that are revealed (if you play the Family Edition with no Occupation or Minor Improvement cards) and has a few paths to victory, though you ultimately win with a diverse farm. It also plays up to four players out of the box.

How about Great Western Trail? For about $40 USD (depending on the time of day), you can play a wonderfully-illustrated game that can have a different starting board state each game and a random set of cows in hand, but provides that feeling of agency as you build buildings along a path to help you and disrupt your opponent.

There is even a Chess variant that lets you deploy one of your opponent's captured pieces as your own piece during the next turn: Shogi. The pieces move somewhat similarly to Chess, except nothing beats the thrill of dropping your Gold attacking piece in a position that is very close to the opponent's king. In Japan, the pieces and the board were roughly $15 to $20 USD, and I cannot imagine they would be much more expensive elsewhere.

There may even be folks out there that prefer Go to Chess because of the fluid nature of the game and the even higher numbers of possible moves than Chess. I've never played Go, but I can state this: it took much longer for developers to create a computer program to beat top Go players than it did to create programs to beat top Chess players.

Let's return to the question: is Chess the best board game ever? Unequivocally, I'd say "No," not necessarily because of the panoply of arguments I've put there as the wide recognition that almost-equally-venerable Go is better than Chess as a game of creativity and organic play. Even if you don't agree with THAT statement, I would wager that I've cast a lot of doubt on the assertion that Chess could even be considered the best board game ever, which is what I feel I have achieved with this post. Of course, this is not to state that Chess is awful or a "bad game." Actually, it IS one of the best for all of the reasons I've mentioned (even in my arguments against it), and it is a fine representative of abstract games in the hobby, but I feel we have come a long way in the board gaming hobby to where you can be a farmer, a cattle rancher, a vegetable trader, a trader in the Mediterranean, a car builder, or even a Space Lion AND have meaningful in-game decisions. Chess is no longer the best, but one of the best of the abstract games.

As I conclude, let me posit a somewhat tangential argument. The Beatles are publicly regarded as arguably the best rock band of all time with their blend of musicianship, songwriting, Top Ten hits, marketability, good looks (generally), and four decent-to-great lead singers who each had successful solo careers (Ringo did have the first solo hit song, by the way). One would be hard-pressed to argue otherwise because of the breadth of evidence. However, I put forth that The Police had three superior musicians, one superlative songwriter and singer (though I must admit that John Lennon's writing was as superlative as Sting's when it comes to depth and introspection) and were also marketable with good looks. In my mind, The Police were the better band, but they also benefited from the groundwork laid by The Beatles, whose diverse genre-bending catalog of songs expanded the rock landscape. Chess is similar: modern board games owe their existence to Chess. In this way, we should always elevate Chess, but also keep in mind that better creations were devised on its shoulders.

What to Do If... No One Wants to Play Your Game

Imagine this scenario: last week, a new game was released at your local game store. You had been excited to acquire it since seven months ago when the first press release announced its impending arrival. With great anticipation, you sped to the game store on the day of release and gobbled up the first copy (as well as all of the necessary card sleeves and containers for tokens, if you are anything like me). You spent a few hours sleeving cards, punching boards, and sorting the contents, relishing each component and piece of superlative artwork. You even found a place of great esteem on your game shelf for your new acquisition.

As you placed your shiny new box in its designated spot, your mind began racing. Who would I invite to play this game for the first time? Who would be available? Who would not be interested? Hurriedly, you bursted forth from your bedroom with notepad in hand, feverishly jotting down names. With your short list of would-be enthusiasts, you flung open your laptop computer, toggled to your email client software, and clicked New to create an email. You added the names, typed the message with urgent intensity, and clicked Send. Your email shot forth like a cannon blast. Then, you waited. And waited. And waited.

"Sorry, I can't play. I have to wash my dog."

"That game? No thanks. Why not play Power Grid?"

"That game looks way too complicated."

"My wife wants me to spend time with her."

"Ugh. I just bought a new game, too. Do you want to play that one?"

Obviously, the enthusiasm for your new game is decidedly low. You are despondent. You begin pondering your life goals. You resort to prayer. Things do not look good... What do you do? Well, there are solutions, some of which you may have already devised, but some might have escaped your attention.

Bring Your New Game to a Larger Gathering
From time to time, your friends might host a large gathering during which games can be played. Use that time to introduce yourself (if there are people who are strangers to you) and your game. Strangers are often the best people to whom you can introduce a game because they have no preconceived notions about you or what you brought.

Entice Your Friends with Food
The fastest way to a gamer's heart is through his stomach. Set up an invitation to play your particular game, and then advertise that you are providing pizza, burritos, or whatever your friends enjoy. This establishes a quid pro quo situation in which you are giving something (food) and getting something (opponents for your game) in return.

Enlist Your Captive Audience... er, Family
A great way to get your new game to the table is to make your family play it. Spouses are difficult to convince, but your children (or nieces and nephews) are impressionable, pliable, and usually more amenable to playing a new game than anyone else. Take to time to know the rules of your new game and practice teaching it to yourself so that you can prepare for training your children and young relatives.

Ultimatums!
A not-so-subtle variation of the quid pro quo arrangement is the ultimatum: "If you don't play my new game, I won't play yours next time!" Now, this kind of forceful declaration must be done with great care and humor, and can even be off-putting for your more thick-skinned friends, but a kind reminder that you are agreeing to play someone else's new game may compel your comrades to partake in your game. However, if they do not agree to play your new game despite your efforts to play theirs, then you may have to consider other options: patience, non-attendance to future sessions, or finding a new game group.

Find a New Group
As I mentioned in previous posts, they may come a time when you need to find a new game group. Of course, leaving your current group forever simply because they would not play your game is extreme and childish ("Fine! I'll take my ball home and you guys can't play with it!"), but their refusal to play your new game may be symptomatic of deeper issues. Perhaps someone in your group has an issue with you and his grudge has affected the group; maybe your group has collectively soured to each other's company. Instead of ditching your old group entirely, find another group at the local game store, at work, or at your church who would be open to meeting. It is fine to be a member of multiple groups, and looking for a fresh group of people with open minds has the ancillary benefit of creating chances to play your recent acquisition.

Be Patient and Plant Seeds
This may not seem like a solution because patience changes nothing in the moment, and it is the most difficult thing to do, but waiting for the opportunity and planting seeds of interest in your friends' minds is often the best approach. Some gamers like familiarity with a game, so they prefer playing a known game and not having to dive into rules explanations, which is why presenting a new game can be a daunting endeavor. For these folks, instead of the brute force tactic of forcing a game on your group, drop hints about it during your next play session. Spend a few weeks reading the rules and shoehorning comments about it every time you meet people in your group. Point out reviews on Board Game Geek or other sites. Talk about how the game's mechanics are like other popular games, but the theme of your game makes those mechanics feel fresh. The process may take a few weeks, but keep trying and, eventually, your gaming group will relent... even if it is to silence you at last.

Find Solo Rules Variants for Your Game
One of the many wonderful aspects of sites like Board Game Geek is the pooling of ideas that people have formulated on their own, especially solo variants for games. Though some games have rules for playing alone in the core rules (such as Robinson Crusoe, First Martians, Le Havre, and Agricola), most games do not benefit from this extra development on the part of the game designer. However, there are folks out there that have taken the time to devise a kind of artificial intelligence for your game so that tasks are essentially automated as if you are playing against a computer. Solo play does require much work on your part to move pieces, draw cards, and follow what can be complex algorithms simulating other players, but playing solo may be preferable to never playing your new game or doing what I am about to suggest...

Sell (or Store) the Game
The last resort is to either store the game and consider it a collectible, or sell the game on eBay or to other gamers. There is no point in keeping a game no one will play (unless you are content with collecting games), so consider selling it to buy expansions for games that your friends play. To avoid this altogether, though, even before buying a game, think about whether or not your friends and/or family will play it.

Before you attempt any of these solutions, there are a few requirements that you must satisfy:

• Learn Your Game
  Read the rules again and again before even attempting to introduce it.
• Practice Teaching the Game
  Brainstorm ideas of how you would teach the game and organize those ideas into a chronological outline. Use your outline to practice teaching the game, perhaps to a family member or just to yourself.
• Organize Your Components
  Have every component of the game organized so that they are easily accessed without wasting valuable game time hunting for them.
• Anticipate Player Counts and Set Aside the Requisite Components
  Some games' setups stipulate how much of any items you need for certain player counts. Instead of counting out tokens and cards at the start of the gaming session, use plastic bags to separate the required items beforehand so that setup is accelerated.
• Know the Comparable Games
  One thing that assuages fears of learning a new game is drawing parallels to existing games with similar mechanics. This further requires knowing your gaming group, but sticking with popular games helps. Here is one example: "My new game has a set collection mechanic, much like the way you collect cards in Ticket to Ride." Also, mentioning that similar games can be found at Target, Barnes and Noble, or other popular retailers sends the message that your new game is not that strange or difficult to learn because games like it are readily available.

Getting your game group to play your most recent purchase can be challenging and disheartening, but with some foresight and planning, you can mitigate this circumstance trying any of the solutions I mentioned. Usually, novelty is not so alluring for people; do not be insulted if your friends refuse to play your new game at the start. Entice, convince, entreat, bribe: there are yet more options you can pursue to help your game see the light of day.

Despite my suggestions, I believe that the best approach is thinking about your friendly opponents and what they would want before you buy a game. For me, I often think about my wife and sons: would they play the game I'm thinking of buying? A few years ago, my sons had the time and desire to play pretty much anything I bought, but now they are teenagers and their tastes have changed. My wife is much more selective, so I try to pick some games she would not mind playing. Also, because I no longer have to kind of gaming group I had at my previous job, I have to think about my old games and how often I can get them to the table; when I do think about that, I am often convinced to not buy a new game.

Furthermore, I encourage you to think about your current inventory of games and ponder how often you would like to play your existing games. The board gaming hobby is heavily steeped in a "cult of the new" mentality in which gamers are often excited to purchase the hottest novelties. This may be you, and if you have the money to engage in this, then I am happy for you. Yet, if you really enjoy your old games and would like to play them more often, reconsider that purchase you want to make. In this way, perhaps the best solution for what to do if no one will play your new game is to not buy that new game... Or, if you have already bought it, take it back to the store and buy some pizzas to tempt your friends and family to go to your house and play games with which they are already familiar.

What to Do If... Your Family Does Not Like Board Games

It is not an uncommon occurrence to have a hobby that most or all of your family does not share. In my family of four, each of us has distinct (what I would call) "main hobbies." For instance, my wife derives a lot of pleasure from hiking and camping; though my sons and I enjoy these activities in varying degrees, they are primarily her hobbies. My oldest son is highly enthusiastic about Japanese car modification and performance, which informs what he reads and mentions daily. My youngest son is greatly interested in wilderness survival and warfare, which serves him well as a Boy Scout. My hobbies... well, my hobbies are running, watching movies, and board games, which are enjoyed or tolerated by the rest of my family. The key term, I should state, is "tolerate."

Every family tolerates its members' hobbies to some extent. In my family, we tolerate, or sometimes enjoy, each other's hobbies and interests. My youngest son is the most flexible: he seems to enjoy camping, cars, AND board games. My oldest son tolerates everyone else's hobbies (which is endemic to being a teenager, I suppose). My wife is intrigued by wilderness survival (my youngest's interest) and puts up with board games from time to time. I glean some enjoyment from camping and hiking and can talk enough about cars to be mildly useful in a conversation. In any case, toleration (NOT endurance or long-suffering) is the operative term.

What happens, though, when your family does NOT like your hobby, specifically, for the purpose of this article, board games? For various reasons, one or more family members may not find any appeal in board games. Whatever the reason, there are ways to turn the situation to your favor. As with any hobby, there are methods and approaches that may change your family's minds about board games. As a thought exercise, let us explore some of those approaches...

Assess Your Family's Interests
One of the most difficult things to do is to involve anyone into one's own hobby because this often requires tweaking one's hobby to accommodate others. Find out in what each of your family members is interested. Let these hobbies drive which games you choose and purchase. This may force you to branch out beyond your own gaming tendencies, such as when one of your children or siblings is interested in fashion; you would probably never head in that direction with board games, so you may have to stretch yourself to accommodate it. Thankfully, nowadays, there are an innumerable amount of games for any theme that exists.

Enlist Competition and Theme
With board games, there are two characteristics that are universally understood enough to fold in many people: competition and theme. In this way, you can connect their interests to board games. For example, if one family member is a sports enthusiast, consider board games that are competitive or cooperative, depending on that person's disposition. You cannot generalize by assume that all sports-minded folks are competitive, so assess his or her disposition. Another example is if a family is interested in cars, like my oldest son; find a game that involves that theme. However, be careful to research the game; some games may appear to have a car "theme," but it may just be a pasted-on theme that acts as a veneer for a bunch of game systems and mechanics. In any case, theme and competition are two avenues by which you can bring in semi-apathetic people.

Be Fair with Everyone's Hobbies
Before launching full-bore into board gaming with those semi-apathetic members of your family, discuss with them your desire to balance everyone's hobbies to ensure that nobody's interests are ignored. To engender intrigue in board games, you must consider your family. This also involves stretching yourself to engage in pastimes that are not your own. In my family, every Friday is Family Night, and each week one person decides what to do on that night. In this way, everyone has a chance to expose others to their hobbies. In order to ensure that board games have some kind of place in your family, I recommend enjoying other people's hobbies, which makes everyone feel included, thus engendering a probable desire to engage in your hobby of board gaming.

Relax
For board gamers, any game is a serious pursuit. Whether it is a gateway game like Ticket to Ride or Settlers of Catan, or a thinky, involved game like Agricola or Twilight Struggle, avid board gamers are fascinated to the extent that even the finer rules and mechanics of such games attract their undivided attention. Non-gamers and casual gamers, though, are not so intense; based on what I have observed, it is the light, social aspects of games that draw them into any game. Thus, I recommend keeping any family game session light with an extreme emphasis on fun. Do not focus on the mechanics of the game, and do not be quite so strict and fastidious with the rules; simply play the game to interact with your family. Patience is also key; your family may ask numerous questions throughout the game that you would be tempted to answer by handing them the game manual to read; do NOT do this! Just relax and take time to explain the rules. If you are calm and non-intense, everyone else will associate calmness and non-intensity to games... at least until they (may) form their own strong interest in board games.

Look at Board Games as Conversation Starters
If anything, games are "social lubricants" which fill conversation gaps and slip past people's protective shells by alleviating the pressure to talk about oneself; use that element of board games by approaching rules explanations like opportunities to talk. Also, use board game time as a chance to discuss other people's hobbies. Sure, a fantasy-themed dungeon crawl may have nothing to do with camping, unless you work hard to make the connection and then discuss it. This is where you have to stretch yourself even further to not view board games as chances to compete or escape the real world, but as chances to ground yourself in the realities of your family members.

Seek Honest Assessment of the Board Games You Choose
This is the toughest requirement: ask your family which of your games they liked. Sometimes, you may be surprised that one or more of your siblings or children enjoyed Power Grid, even though it seemed long and thinky when you last played it. Sometimes, though, you may NOT be surprised that they did not enjoy that three-hour session of Lewis & Clark and how the winner had run away with the victory 30 minutes before you actually finished the game. Assessing your family's interest in your games can be a sensitive matter because, even though you really enjoy certain games in your collection, they may not like your beloved games at all! What do you do in this instance? There are two solutions: consign certain games to sessions with your gamer group only, or sell the games to acquire ones that better fit your family. The former is easier, yet you would have to live with the fact that you would play those games much less often; the latter is tough, but may serve as an opportunity to acquire newer, more streamlined games. In other words, by assessing your family's tendencies, you can craft your game collection to include them.

I am sure there are many more ideas regarding how to enfold your family into board gaming, but just as toleration is key to your family enjoying each other's hobbies, it is incumbent upon you to stretch yourself to accommodate your family. In this way, the answer to what to do if your family does not like board game is simple yet extremely arduous: you have to be self-sacrificial, which is, sadly, an odd concept where one's hobbies are concerned. It does not have to be odd, though. By giving up some of your tendencies, you include others and become a better person for it because board games become less about rules, mechanics, and theme, and more about conversation, inclusion, relaxation, and fun.

This reminds me of a great Bible verse: There is no greater love than to lay down one’s life for one’s friends (John 15:13). With our hobbies, we should do no less -- lay down our own interests for our friends and family. That may involve playing games you would not play on your own or playing less than you would want. Yet, I believe that if you accomplish this, you elevate board games to something better than a personal hobby; it becomes something that binds the family together. I think every hobby should achieve this.

Rules Discussion: Using One Token to Track Multiple Game Elements

There is an intriguing little (for lack of a better word) mechanic I have observed in Eclipse and Glass Road. Honestly, it's neither a mechanic nor a rule, per se, but a nifty way of accounting for gained resources, and this design element is becoming more popular, as far as I can tell. In those two games, removing chits or tokens reveals new abilities or income. In Eclipse, as far as I have observed, if you deploy one of your cubes onto another part of the board, a higher income level is revealed, as if by deploying a worker you make more money. Something similar happens in Glass Road; by removing or "spending" certain resources, a glass piece or a brick piece is revealed, enabling you to building something or accumulate items. In both cases, what is happening is simple to understand: you are tracking income or accumulation in a clever way.

Let me explicitly state my point: as time has passed and modern games have been created on the backs of games before them, newer and more elegant ways of tracking your stuff have been introduced. In the past, tracking accumulation was fiddly: you had to maintain piles of tokens or you slid a dedicated counter down a scoring track of some kind. If you look back 10 or 15 years ago, you may notice that these "older" board games were like accounting spreadsheets in which had to balance every column by retaining piles of chits. This is apparent in Uwe Rosenberg's earlier games, such as Le Havre and Agricola; in both games, you tracked your stuff by keeping piles of... well, stuff.

However, a few years ago, Rosenberg created Glass Road, which is, in many ways, a huge refinement of those past games in one regard: instead of maintaining piles of junk, you simply turn a dial and slide one token representing each resource along the dial to indicate how much you had of each resource. This was a genius move and worthy of distinction because Rosenberg succeeded in instilling that beloved complexity into a game, yet streamlining the bookkeeping to a few deft moves of tokens and a dial. Brilliant!

There are numerous reasons why fiddly bookkeeping has given way to elegant tracking through subtraction. One reason is because, by moving a piece or a dial, you track two trends -- resource accumulation and revelation of a new level of play -- which is expeditious for gameplay. Another reason is because with game designers interweaving more systems, tracking those systems must also be more streamlined lest a game night devolve into so much cube-pushing and chit-moving that turns take twice as long as it takes to make decisions. Yet another reason to consider is that, frankly, including more material in a game makes it more expensive to manufacture and buy; by limiting the tokens and the chits, game costs stay relatively low without sacrificing complexity.

The odd irony is that even elegant tracking mechanisms can feel fiddly, which is why Eclipse indeed seems like an old game. Interestingly, Eclipse is not an "old" game, per se, though it did come out in 2011, which is kind of long in the tooth for board games. Eclipse was ahead of its time, though Eclipse represents that awkward period of transition when popular trends shift, early adopters struggle with those new trends, and then those trends become publicized to the extent that people understand them better. On the shoulders of such games as Eclipse, game designers may have discovered those novel ways of tracking resources, improving on the old designs.

Nowadays, I see more games using a method of tracking two or more items by simply moving one piece or one dial. Great Western Trail and Mombasa, which are both Alexander Pfister games, employ this approach to accumulation. In Mombasa, for example, when you explore a region of the board, you deploy a house piece representing a company's interest in that region; at the same time, if a coin space is revealed, then an end-game scoring bonus is definitely forthcoming. All it took to account for this was the game designer using the removal of that house piece as the bookkeeper for that end-game bonus instead of using a dedicated tracking dial or slider.

This is the bright future of board gaming with more complex games mitigating all that fiddliness with more elegant ways of keeping your books balanced by tracking two or more items with one element. In that way, even the bookkeeping itself is a game mechanic because you are moving pieces from one space to another whilst revealing a higher level of income, a new resource, or even a bonus to end-game scoring (see Mombasa). Any thoughts on that?

Rules Discussion: Sanctioned Cheating

I haven't written anything for Rules Discussion in a while, but I do have a topic today: sanctioned cheating, which is the concept (not necessarily a mechanic) of being allowed to "cheat" within the rules of a game. I'm not talking about deception of an opponent with misdirection or baiting tactics that prevail in miniature and/or war games; to convince your opponent that you're attacking one region when you're actually targeting another region on the board is endemic to such games. I'm also not talking about using distraction or "table talk" to fluster or confuse an opponent, though some may consider this "cheating." Instead, I'm discussing the concept of breaking or bending rules in a game as being encouraged by the rules of the game itself.

One form of sanctioned cheating is outright lying, which happens rampantly in Sheriff of Nottingham (in which you are encouraged to deceive the Sheriff to smuggle contraband into Nottingham) and the classic Balderdash (in which you try to convince others that your false definition for a word is the "real" one). I'm very much on the fence about this topic because encouraging one's children to lie (even in a game) may send a conflicting message. Lying can happen to humorous effect, and the rules allows for it in these games, so it is actually "wrong" to do it? Hmm... As a Christian, I am truly conflicted by this idea, yet games like these can be fun if it is understood that lying is only "acceptable" when sanctioned by the rules... That's really confusing!

Another form of sanctioned cheating is the one on which I'm focusing: rules that allow you to break the rules, which is complicated, so I'll focus on one game to explain: Cheating Moth, or Mogel Motte in German. This game involves a simple objective of ridding yourself of cards to win. Each player starts with a hand of eight cards. Depending on the face-up card in the discard pile, each player places the appropriate card on top of the discard pile. For example, if there is a "1" card on the pile, you can place a "5" or a "2." There are several cards that incur special conditions, such as a "mosquito" card which requires all players but the active player to slap their hands on it; the last player to do so receives one card from each player's hand. Anyway, there isn't much to say about the hand evacuation aspect of this game... except that the rules allow players to not only rid themselves of cards in the conventional way, but also in any other way they see fit! This could involve, say, dropping one card at a time on the floor, or placing them up a sleeve, or playing each card on the discard pile out of turn, all the while convincing the other players that it's one's turn.

Of course, this sounds like anarchy, but there's yet another catch: at the start of each game, one player is the "Guard Bug," whose job is to catch cheaters. For instance, if someone drops a card on the floor and the Guard Bug sees the act happen, he or she calls out the cheater, who must then receive one card from each of his or her opponents. Then, that cheater becomes the Guard Bug. The Guard Bug is the only player in Cheating Moth who cannot "cheat," which is a huge burden because he or she has to rid themselves of cards the conventional way AND keep a wary eye on all the players to not only stem the tide of cheating, but also to get rid of the Guard Bug title for themselves!

Sanctioned cheating is a dynamic that doesn't necessarily interest me as a gamer, but it's an intriguing, also mind-bending paradigm to consider. In the case of Cheating Moth, the "cheating" is sanctioned in that you have a game "layer" in which there is a basic mechanic for getting rid of cards, and then there is a kind of social layer on the game layer that allows you to circumvent the rules in the game layer. This is when sanctioned cheating works in a game: if there is an elementary game mechanic and victory conditions in place, the rules can allow for a subset of stacked rules that let players get around the game mechanic. For games with simple objectives and rules, it would be easy to place a cheating social layer on the game. However, for complex games like Twilight Struggle or Agricola, cheating would confuse everyone and throw the game into chaos; can you imagine if players could steal sheep from the central area, or even the "bank?"

In order for sanctioned cheating to work, I believe you have to have a strong and direct core of simple rules and victory conditions. If goals and rules are complex, cheating actually works toward undermining the entire game, but with Cheating Moth, you have an easy goal (i.e. get rid of cards) which is dull if played in that way, but the cheating layer (and the "Guard Bug role) adds another layer to the game that doesn't undermine the rule layer. Sanctioned cheating is a difficult topic to broach because one may have strong convictions against cheating, and yet there may be a social layer that allows for cheating in a game. To be honest, this is not really my cup of tea, and yet Cheating Moth is quite fun because you are required to be creative with how you remove cards from your hand.

What are your thoughts?

Rules Discussion: Resource Conversion

Lewis & Clark has some nifty mechanics interwoven into a fine racing game; one such mechanic is resource conversion for movement. Basically, in order to advance up river or mountain spaces, you need one or more characters that convert resources to movement, and you need characters or Native Americans to gather the resources you need. The key is to find the characters that most optimally convert resources to movement. At the start, everyone gets a mission commander, who can convert two food into two river spaces, one canoe into four river spaces, or one horse into two (?) mountain spaces. This is the bare minimal conversion rate, so you have to keep your eye out for characters who convert fewer resources into more spaces. For example, one character converts three wood into four river spaces, which cuts out the "conversion to canoe" intermediary step. Ultimately, Lewis & Clark boils down to setting up an efficient resource conversion engine.

Resource conversion is prevalent in European games. Two examples I can recall are Uwe Rosenberg games: in Le Havre, you process simple resources into things like smoked fish, steel, and coke; and in Agricola, you can convert wood, clay, or reed into food with the right occupation or major improvement. I'm not counting using resources to build final products, such as in Stone Age, in which you convert resources to huts or civilization items, or in Puerto Rico, in which you convert cargo into victory points (though it is a kind of conversion), but changing one resource into another is common to Euro games and a welcome, time-honored mechanic.

Do you have any examples of resource conversion to share?

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).

Agricola Six-Player Variant: The Genius of Three Contributors

Unlike many of the entries I've written for this blog, this post does not relate to first-hand nostalgia (1HN) or anything from my past. Instead, I am writing about Agricola, the superlative game created by Uwe Rosenborg. It burst on the Euro boardgame scene in 2007 and has garnered numerous awards, namely the 2008 Complex Game Spiel des Jahres, which is the German Game of the Year award -- the Academy Award of board games. It's a game that involves placing workers on action spaces to plow fields, build fences and pastures, grow crops, raise livestock, expand a family, and improve the farm to score points. All the while, players have to worry about feeding their families during each harvest, which is nerve-wracking, and developing their farms in a diverse and balanced fashion, since diversity is emphasized as people who score in the most categories often do well. I'm not doing justice to Agricola, but there are numerous reviews out there that strive to explain this game. Of course, if you are too busy to read those reviews, I can sum up Agricola with one sentence: it's a wonderful mental exercise that causes headaches and is certainly worth your and your family's time.

That said, in this post, I am consolidating the contributions of three different Board Game Geek members who have produced resources that make it possible to play Agricola as a six-player game. Out of the box, Agricola allows one to five players to play, which is really cool because you can play solo if you have no one around or you can play with four other family members or friends in a game that truly absorbs over two hours of play time. However, thanks to the genius of Agricola fans, you can play with a sixth player. To do so, here are the steps I took to play six-player Agricola:

1) Go to the Lookout Games website and order items

Lookout Games is the German manufacturer of Agricola and the brainchild of Uwe Rosenborg and others. At that site, you can order most of their products with English text or language-independent products, such as game pieces. When you go to the website, navigate to the Shop webpage and click Agricola to narrow the results to display Agricola items only. Surprisingly, it was at this website that I ordered the following items at the best prices I could find online:

• One set of Resource pieces
• One set of Grain and Vegetable pieces (if available)
• An extra player board
• Pieces for a sixth player

Including shipping, all of these items (at the Euro exchange rate at which I bought these items) cost me about $27 (US). As of May 2, 2014, all but the Grain and Vegetable pieces are available, but you can find these pieces under another category on the website if you search for them. I highly recommend you buy extra resource, grain, and vegetable pieces because six players will gobble up the pieces that come with the game rather quickly.

By the way, the Lookout Games website is in German, but German is translated into English easily by most browsers.

2) Register for membership at Boardgamegeek.com

To download the items that I mention in the following steps, please register for a free membership to Board Game Geek. Once you have your membership, not only can you download anything at any available file size, but you can also comment on people's reviews and even write board game reviews of your own.

3) Print out stickers for multiplier pieces and paste them to your default discs

A Board Game Geek member named ScottE created stickers that act as multipliers. For example, instead of having three wood tokens to signify three wood, you could take one 3x wood piece. What I did was after I received my extra pieces from Lookout Games, I printed out this user's multipier stickers, cut them out, pasted together two of the discs that represent wood in the Agricola box, and then pasted the cut sticker to the top of the stacked disc. Now, I have a 3x wood multipler token that saves the nicely-card wood pieces for those who have smaller amounts of wood.

To make the stickers fit on top of the default wood discs, I printed both pages of ScottE's PDF onto one 8.5 x 11 in. piece of paper. As it turned out, each sticker was sized perfectly to fit on the default discs out of the Agricola box. Moreover, when I played six-player Agricola, I found that having these  multiplier tokens were extremely useful and helped my friends and I not run out of any resource pieces during gameplay.

4) Download the Six-Player Variant board

A Board Game Geek member named patox created a six-player variant board that looks very much like the boards that come with Agricola. If you are a member of Board Game Geek, you can download the largest version of the six-player board file. I downloaded it and played a six-player game recently with it. Though I am relatively inexperienced with the game, I was more than impressed with how the board addressed player needs without making the game easier. My only observation is that there are only two Build Fences action available to six players: one is on the main actions board, and the other one is part of the Renovate action that comes out during the last round of the game. The six-player board does not provide another action space for building fences, so gameplay can be very challenging for those who want to use farmyard spaces at the end of the game and not get penalized for unused spaces (which is a -1 point penalty for each unused farmyard space).

In any case, this board is absolutely awesome, but keep in mind that you'll have to print out the board on 8.5 x 14 in. paper and then paste it on large, thick cardstock.

5) Download the Major Improvement card image

A third Board Game Geek member named Tinkerer created images to lay over three Minor Improvement cards that are used as Major Improvements on the Six-Player Variant board. Understandably, the three Minor Improvement cards (Simple Fireplace, Cooking Hearth, and Wood-Fired Oven) do not have the burgundy border that denotes Major Improvements. However, if you print out the image to which I linked and size the image to a height of 3.63 inches, you can then cut out each card and slide them as overlays over the Minor Improvement cards in card sleeves. You now have three new Major Improvement cards that work with the Six-Player Variant board and look pretty close to how these cards would look if Lookout Games had manufactured them.

6) Get five friends together to play.

As it turned out, not only did I get six co-worker friends to play, but I had to teach all of them how to play the game! Also, since I was the seventh person, I decided to sit out the game and help my friends learn Agricola... with the Six-Player Variant board. After three lunch breaks of play, each of my friends walked away from the game stating that they liked the game and felt that, for a fan-created board, the Six-Player Variant board was well-crafted and effective. As for me, I was very pleased that, with some well-placed orders, some Internet hunting, and some cutting and pasting, I could make Agricola playable for six players and not have the game feel ruined.

To Lookout Games, patox, ScottE, and Tinkerer, thank you for making six-player Agricola a reality. Also, to those of you who have yet to play Agricola, just know that if you're ever interested in learning the game, there are fine fan-made resources out there that can enhance your gaming experience without depriving you of too much money.