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.

My New X-Wing Blog: the Step on Snek Squadron!

Hello, everyone. I wanted to let you know that I have started a new blog committed to the X-Wing Miniatures Game called Step on Snek Squadron! Here is the link to that blog.

To summarize, the Step on Snek Squadron focuses not on the casual player, the enthusiast, or the competitive player who vies for tournament wins -- it is for the false beginner player who has experience with the game, and even in local tournaments, but is not good enough to do well at such tournaments. Sure, you may win the odd casual night or even dominate in your own home, but once you leave the safe confines of those arenas, you find yourself wanting.

When you get a chance, check out the blog. I will refer to it from time to time on this blog at steponsneksquadron.blogspot.com. Yes, I will continue to write RetroBeliever posts (if I get around to it), so don't go away.

Rules Discussion: Movement by Ruler or Template

Recently, I've been playing a bit of the X-Wing Miniatures Game, in which players move ships from point to point using pre-measured maneuver templates. For example, if you want to move a ship one ship-length ahead (it actually works out to be two ship-lengths), you use the 1-straight maneuver template to advance the ship by placing the back of the template against the front of the ship base and then sliding the ship base to the front of the template such that the back of ship base touches the template's front. In X-Wing, during the Activation phase of each turn, players move ships in order of pilot skill, which means that the lowest pilot skill moves first. However, after all movement and actions happen, the Combat phase begins and the highest pilot skill attacks first. Basically, this reflects the concept that the lesser pilots can fly wherever they want, but the good pilots hit first.

There are numerous challenges with this mechanic. One challenge is planning ahead to ensure that your ships do not collide with each other or opposing ships; in X-Wing, if ship bases overlap, then the ship that overlapped the existing ship is unable to perform an action, such as performing a barrel roll or a target lock on an opposing ship. This can be a major gaffe during a critical time in the battle because you may need that action to increase your chances of hitting a foe's ship. Another challenge is predicting where your opponent's ships will finish their maneuvers; in X-Wing, everyone decides what their moves will be in secret, locks their moves, but then announces and executes moves in order of pilot skill. This means that you don't know where your opponent's ships will end up. In my case, I often find my ships completely out of position to target anyone (which further reflects my inexperience with this game, while seasoned players would know how best to maneuver their ships to address the most probable attack vectors). Yet another challenge is the element of stress in X-Wing. Everyone uses a maneuver dial to decide which move their ships will execute; some moves are "green" maneuvers, which clear any "stress" tokens from a ship, but some moves are "red" maneuvers, which add stress to a ship, thus limiting the maneuvers a ship can complete during the next round to only green maneuvers. Stress constraints ships to a smaller subset of possible maneuvers, which makes your future maneuver choices more predictable. You have to balance stress clearing with stress accumulation, all the while trying to execute your own strategies and NOT be predictable.

Movement by ruler or template is nothing new in gaming, but what I have found to be most challenging is conceiving where my ships will conclude their supposed maneuvers at the end of each turn while trying to anticipate where my opponent's ships will end up. Of course, knowing the maneuverability of each individual ship type helps, as well as paying attention to stress tokens on each ship, but this level of two-dimensional spatial reasoning is one that is largely absent from board games. Typically, with most Euro games, pieces serve as markers or reminders of how much of each resource you have, or whether a particular action was taken or not, or of scoring. In miniatures games, though, the pieces are the attackers, with each piece possessing one or more defining and unique attributes; moreover, the position of one piece in relation to another determines attack range, hit probability, and damage intensity. There is also a fastidiousness to moving miniatures that further signals how important position is; in X-Wing, for instance, every inch counts because moving one way or another can be the deciding factor of if a desired target is in your firing arc. Even nudging pieces accidentally can trigger tableside heart attacks as all opponents argue over where your piece should really be. To me, it's a different way of viewing the tabletop... but it's a welcome difference because I am stretched as a gamer to understand and use game pieces with attention to table position.

The telltale mechanic of any miniatures game is movement by measurement, and it's a mechanic that I urge every gamer to dive in and experience at least for a few games. There are "easy" games that introduce gamers to spatial reasoning, such as Memoir '44 and Battlelore; though movement still happens hex by hex, range and position are crucial. Games like X-Wing, Wings of Glory, and Star Trek Attack Wing ratchet up the difficulty even more because you no longer have hexes -- you have to use maneuver templates. The ultimate miniatures game experience comes from actual use of a bonafide ruler, such as in Warhammer 40k. When you're measuring range by centimeters and being off by only a tiny few millimeters can affect an entire turn, you are truly feeling the headache and thrill of tabletop positioning. Of course, in a few months, I may change my mind and grow to loathe movement by template. I mean, I may rather place workers and accumulate resources than worry about whether I nudged my A-Wing accidentally or not.