Rules Discussion: Catch-up Mechanisms

Catch-up mechanisms are a somewhat polarizing concept in gaming, for it involves enabling players in last place or close to last place to catch up to the leaders. The prime example of this is in Power Grid, in which the last place player (who does bid for power plants last) purchases resources first and connects to cities first, as well. This affords those back-dwellers opportunities to "catch up" with better deals on resources, which lets them conserve money to add to their networks. It's a mechanic that defines Power Grid and (as I heard in a Long View podcast) German politics and utilities in that the lagging company is helped, while the leaders are distrusted enough to be penalized. American business is the opposite, which leads to massive oligopolies and disappearing mom-and-pop shops.

Based on my somewhat limited knowledge of board games, I can only say that there are other games that have some kind of catch-up mechanisms, though I'm not familiar with them. A possible example is Star Realms because certain cards let players draw another card, either by simply playing those cards or depending on the presence of allies. If a player plays enough "Draw one card" cards in quick succession, damage can accumulate rapidly, leading to a 30-point attack on an opponent who may have been way ahead in Authority points. However, this is not a catch-up mechanism as much as it is an example of a game that has single cards or actions that can turn the tide of a game for a player. When I talk about catch-up mechanisms, I'm talking about a general rule or mechanic that is inherent to each turn of game play, not singular events that can change the game. I suppose I could refer to those events as "game changers," but that would be employing a terribly hackneyed expression in its proper context; that just bothers me...

Anyway, catch-up mechanisms are controversial for a few reasons. One is because they can serve to hand victory to the lagging player; for some, this is a nice leveling element that offers the newbie a chance to win a game; for others, catch-up mechanisms can cheapen a game, denying a front-runner the victory mostly because he or she was in first place most of the game. Another reason is a causal effect of the first reason: because experienced players may be well aware of the presence of a catch-up mechanism, they may hang back on purpose to yield the benefits of the lower position, and then surge ahead at the end. Much like running, cycling, or auto racing, you can "draft" off your opponent as he or she faces the full brunt of wind resistance, all the while conserving energy until the final straightaway. A third reason why catch-up mechanisms are controversial is a broad one: they feel oddly un-democratic, as if the "nail that sticks up gets hammered down," as they liked to say in Japan (I speak from six years of experience living there). Who wants to feel like they are fettered by a mechanic just so that the trailing players have more opportunities to win? You're almost better off stinking for most of the game...

Personally, I haven't played enough of Power Grid to truly understand the impact of its catch-up mechanic, but I understand it enough to see its value, which is mainly that it levels the playing field for new players to keep up with experienced ones. The funny thing, though, is that experienced players would know well enough to NOT run in front until the end, which is very much like running, cycling, or auto racing. The sweetest victory would come when a front-runner can stay in front despite the catch-up mechanism, but the more plausible road to victory involves staying with the peloton (the cycling group behind the leader) until you see the finish. In this way, veterans can negate the catch-up mechanism, and instead use it as the means to surge in front, which would mean that the catch-up mechanism isn't really for catching up at all... It's just a way to "draft" behind the leader. I guess catch-up mechanisms aren't so bad, after all.

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).