Trash or Treasure? #2: Carcassonne

Of all of the venerated gateway games, Carcassonne has to be the most elegant, yet deeply strategic game of the bunch. Each turn is simple: draw one tile from a bag or blind stack, place an edge of the tile next to a compatible edge on an already placed tile, and decide whether or not you deploy a “follower” on a feature of that tile. The edge (or center) of every tile can be part of a feature such as a city, a road, or open land in service of creating a “farm” or completing the tile spaces around a cloister (or monastery or whatever). When a follower is put on the most recently-placed tile, that follower either scores points when the city, road, or cloister is complete (and is then removed), or the follower remains on the feature until the end of the game. The base game has 72 tiles and each player has seven followers (note: an eighth follower is used for the scoring track). After the last tile is drawn and played, all incomplete features and farms (or open areas bounded by cities and roads) are scored. I won’t discuss the details of scoring, but, basically, highest score wins.

In practice, Carcassonne is fast-paced with only a three-move turn (i.e., draw, place, and put) and seems very tactical, especially at higher player counts; at four or five players, you can keep track of what is drawn, but options change with each new tile, affecting any long-range thinking. However, Carcassonne shines at two players; with only 72 total tiles to play, each player is assured 36 tiles, and as the game progresses one can anticipate which tiles might be drawn or, more crucially, which tiles are no longer available. This leads to creating game states in which it is rendered impossible for the opponent to complete a feature, thus locking up their follower (in a city fragment, for instance) for the rest of game. In turn, this limits the opponent’s scoring opportunties.

When I started out in the board game hobby, after Ticket to Ride, I tried Carcassonne -- not the base game, mind you, but the base game with the Inns & Cathedrals and Traders & Builders expansions, which added goods scoring, different buildings, and more specialized followers. My first game was played during a lunch with three other people. Because I had no familiarity with the tile inventory, the game felt tactical, and yet if I watched enough features, I could build out multiple scoring opportunities by waiting for the right tile. As time passed, I purchased Carcassonne for myself, as well as FOUR expansions I really enjoyed, and would play protracted games of Carcassonne with no less than six players (one expansion provided another set of followers for a sixth player). One particular expansion, The Princess & The Dragon, introduced the Dragon, which was moved by whomever drew a volcano tile, and then by every other player. Whenever the Dragon was placed through another player’s incomplete feature, that player’s follower was removed and given back to the player. This led to chaotic games during which NOBODY could make any long-range plans and had to focus on completing and scoring roads and cities quickly.

By my reckoning, Carcassonne was the first tile-laying game of its kind in which players collectively constructed the board and scored based on how they constructed it. In 2000, Carcassonne must have been a revelation as it won the coveted Spiel des Jahres -- an award given to the game and designer who created the most innovative family game of the year. Since that time, tile-laying games have become much less uncommon; three years later, in 2003, Alhambra would win the Spiel des Jahres with a variation of tile-laying in which players purchased their tiles and built out their own palaces. Games like Alhambra, Kingdomino, Isle of Skye, Patchwork, Calico, Cascadia, The Castles of Mad King Ludwig, and Suburbia employ the tile-laying mechanism with varying degrees of complexity and interwoven game mechanics.

Should I trash or treasure Carcassonne?

At its weight (1.80 out of 5, according to Board Game Geek), Carcassonne snatches the catchphrase of “a minute to learn, (but) a lifetime to master” out of Othello’s figuratively grubby little hands. Very few games take a simple turn structure and turn it into a brutal combination of take-that, one-uppsmanship, and analysis paralysis like this game. At higher play counts and with more expansions, Carcassonne can descend into near-party-game madness; at lower player counts, the game becomes tighter, more strategic, and more cutthroat. It takes several plays to realize this dichotomy between tactical group play and strategic one-on-one maneuvering, but the more Carcassonne is played, the more depth is surprisingly revealed.

As I mentioned earlier, the tile-laying mechanic has had time to percolate and mature, so there is a panoply of choices now available. As of 2022, Cascadia emerged as a hexagonal tile layer in which you build out your own landscape and place one of several animal tokens on any open hex that can accommodate the animal token. With a scoring system that changes with each game, Cascadia has a variability that is not present in Carcassonne’s scoring system. At first blush, it would appear that a game like Cascadia is “doing it better” than Carcassonne...

Yet, in my mind, Carcassonne is STILL the finest tile-layer of its kind at the two-player or three-player count. The tiles are cutely drawn (if I can even insinuate that this game is “cute”), the followers (which we all know now as “meeples”) are iconic pieces in the board gaming world, and heinous crimes against humanity that can be perpetrated on a shared map instills a level of interaction absent in many of the games I mentioned. Carcassonne also transforms into an engaging party game with seven or even eight players (buy more pieces!). Carcassonne is a strategic gem, especially if your opponent knows the inventory of tiles as well as you do.

Though I have considered selling Carcassonne and all of the expansions and mini-expansions I have collected, I always convince myself NOT to trash this masterpiece. I thoroughly enjoy Alhambra and am growing to like Cascadia (and I have the quasi-team-oriented Between Two Castles of Mad King Ludwig), but Carcassonne has a undefinable whimsy to it. Maybe it’s the adorable followers, or maybe it’s that particular shade of green on all of the field tiles. I dunno...

No, I do know! I’m treasuring this one.

Should you trash or treasure Carcassonne?

If you own Carcassonne, I have to be honest and say that it is your judgment call. I do recommend treasuring it, but there are enough casual-level tile-layers out there that you can choose one of the games I mentioned and use THAT as the entry point into gaming for your non-gamer friends. There are also other themes out there; if medieval landscape building is not your thing, why not build a city in Suburbia? Or build a space station with Among the Stars? Thus, trashing Carcassonne is really up to preference.

If you don't own it, buying the base game would not set you back more than, say, $25 US. I strongly suggest sticking with the base set unless you REALLY enjoy it. Not as ubiquitous as Ticket to Ride, Carcassonne can be found in some big-box stores like Target and Barnes & Noble, online through Amazon, and, of course, the local game store. However, places like Walmart do not carry Carcassonne (unless it’s a fluke).

***

Unlike Ticket to Ride, I can argue that games have come along with different themes that may compel you to buy something besides Carcassonne. For me, though, this game will always have a special place in my heart, and is one that is still visually appealing and cute. Nowadays, the art has been revamped; it’s very attractive art, but I still prefer the original art from the game’s Rio Grande Games days.

Rules Discussion: Rule-Breaking Pieces

There is something about the sanctioned breaking of rules in a game. Sure, cheating should be anathema to any board gamer worth his or her salt, and wanton disregard for rules should be the rationale for banishing any gamer to the outer reaches of society. I would even proffer that gamers who flaunt the rules in favor of "house rules" should be hung by their pinky toes in the town square (that's humor, by the way). Okay, that's a bit extreme (especially since I sometimes resort to house rules when I don't understand a game's mainstream rules AND I don't have time to research the rulings), but being given license to break the rules is an intriguing concept. What if someone told you to ignore your dice roll in Monopoly and just buy whatever property you wanted, but at double the price? What if you could attack a territory far from your own in Risk? What if you could decline the card exchange in Hearts? Such "rule-breaking" adds a spicy element to a game, confusing long-time adherents, but in a beneficial way. 

Sanctioned rule-breaking is often in the purview of house rules and game variants, though you also find it in game pieces that change the fundamental rules of a game. For example, i

n the Abbey & Mayor expansion of Carcassonne, there is a Wagon piece that not only allows a player to claim a feature, but to move the Wagon on to another attached feature upon completion of the feature the Wagon was occupying. For example, if your Wagon is on a city tile with an attached road and you complete the city, the Wagon moves onto the road after scoring. In Carcassonne, this is a hugely important rule-breaking piece for one reason: even though you complete a city, road, or cloister, if you have no more followers to place, you cannot claim any adjacent feature on the tile that finished that city, road, or cloister, even though the follower is returned to you because follower placement happens before scoring, not after scoring. If you have no followers, you cannot take advantage of the tile you just placed. With the Wagon, though, you can move it onto an attached feature, potentially scoring that feature, as well.

The Wagon is probably my favorite follower in Carcassonne (the Barn is not a follower, but it is also an awesomely powerful piece). I must admit that the Wagon is not necessarily a rule or mechanic in and of itself, but it is the only piece in Carcassonne that breaks the follower placement rule. Rule-breaking pieces or cards can be found in many other games. Another example (though a minor one) are the gates in Alhambra, which allow you to place a walled edge of one building tile against the wall edge of another building tile, yet preserve the "being able to walk to the fountain" rule of tile placement. Yet another instance is the station in Ticket to Ride: Europe, which lets you connect to a city when all other routes into that city are taken and thus blocked.

I have found that rule-breaking pieces are often found in expansions to games, as if breaking the rules of a base game is in the strict purview of expansions (though base game variants and the aforementioned house rules are also viable means by which a game's rules can be altered). In other words, we buy the base set to learn the rules of a game, and then we buy expansions when A) we are bored of the rules in the base set, and/or B) we feel oddly compelled to discover how it feels to break or tweak the rules of the base set. Both sentiments are similar, but there's a difference: while option A encapsulates that feeling we get after playing a game ten or more times (or less), option B speaks into that innate pioneering spirit to explore the unknown or test the waters. Or, it may just be the effect of our sinful natures to feel the compulsion to break rules. I hope that's not the case, though, because I really enjoy expansions...

In any case, rule-breaking pieces can enliven a once-moribund game experience and renew interest in a classic; this is how Settlers of Catan stays alive, in my opinion. Carcassonne is no different, which is why my interest in the game remains piqued after all these years; expansions have breathed life and vitality into the game. Yet, to be fair, Carcassonne's base set presents a strategic depth that people don't often realize unless it is played repeatedly; once you know the game's tile inventory, you know the frequency of certain tiles, and thus you know how to prevent your opponent from finishing key features in the game. Absent that, though, expansions do add spice to many games and are an undeniable means by which a one-hit-wonder designer (like Klaus Jurgen-Wrede, though he did create Pompeii) can stay gainfully paid with his or her one masterpiece.

Do you have any other base game or expansion pieces or cards in any game that break a base game rule or mechanic that you would like to discuss?

Rules Discussion: Varied Currency in Board Games

The concept of money and "currency" in board gaming is not a new trend. In fact, some of our classic (or, I should say, time-worn) board games are predicated on money, such as Monopoly and Life. Money is something to which people can relate readily, since we use it in our daily lives. As board games have become more varied in their themes and sophisticated in their designs, not many games employ game money, as if money was too jejune an idea to incorporate into (what some cynics may consider to be) "hoity-toity" connoisseur games (I'm being facetious, of course... if not needlessly verbose). Of course, games like Alhambra, Puerto Rico, and Power Grid use money outright, but you get what I mean...

Anyway, there are a vast majority of games that use many other countable items or points as currency to execute actions or even "buy" items. Case in point: Village (by Markus and Inka Brand) not only employs gold coins as currency, but also colored cubes, time (one unit of time can be used to perform an action), and even family members, who can (in a way) be swapped for goods and/or placement in the town Chronicle. Another fine example of varied currency is Five Tribes, which uses victory points to bid for turn order and purchase cards from the Marketplace, as well as white meeples and/or Fakir cards to purchase djinns. A third example of varied currency is Core Worlds, which uses "energy" and actions as currency.

Varied currency may include resources, as well, though I tried to avoid that inclusion for the purposes of this discussion because trading resources for in-game actions (though very much like a currency) crosses over into the realm of... well, "resource conversion." Village does straddle that dividing line in its use of colored cubes, but those cubes are odd concrete representations of abstract concepts like "knowledge" and "commerce," so I don't think of those cubes as resources. Nonetheless, the incorporation of victory points, time, actions, energy, and other abstractions as currency is a fascinating mechanic in and of itself because it's an attempt to quantify that which we don't often quantify as spendable, though we should... I mean, we do "spend" time performing actions; we do "spend" energy to exercise or perform daily functions; and, we do "spend" life points to fight evil (as in Shadows over Camelot).