Exploring a "subversion of the point salad paradigm" game that makes every decision seem like a bad one. How The Field of the Cloth of Gold creates it's own kind of fun out of gift giving.
I had not heard of this game, thanks for the review. Although it strikes me a bit odd to call Agricola a point salad game. It's very easy to have a starving family if you're not careful.
Yeah, I thought someone might call that out! :) Agricola is always included in lists of "point salad" games because there are many ways to score, but I agree. It has a very punishing mechanism built into it, including the ability to go negative in score. I had one 3-player game end with: 20, 19, and -29. Rough.
Perhaps Feast for Odin would be a better example if trying to stay in that same genre. I don't recall that one being quite as punishing.
Spacebiff recently had an article about different types of fun and at the time had a hard time coming up with examples of the top of my head of agonizing fun. This seems like it fits the bill!
Every Hollandspiele game I've tried has been interesting and more than a little stressful. I wrote about The Wars of Marcus Aurelius a while back... and have yet to win a game of it. I've also played Endurance but it's such a challenging (mechanically and emotionally) game that I haven't thought of a good way to write about it. Hard to compress that one into a 1200 word blog post.
When I think of agonizing decisions, I think of card driven games. The one that most springs to mind is Quartermaster General 1914. Each player will have a hand of seven cards (until they run out...) but on each turn you can only play one card for its main action, plus prepare a card for future sustain or support actions. The game only lasts 17 turns, so you will only ever play a maximum of 17 cards for their main action, but most of them you want to play, so you always have to turn away from good options. It's the kind of pain I enjoy.
Once you have enough/all points in one category, it gets detrimental to further invest in this category.
And if you define point salad as "every action yields points", then it does not belong to this category either. Getting wood does not yield points. Becoming first player does not. Just as examples.
I've played two games that make you feel like every move is a bad one. Arboretum is beautiful, and sounds like it should be a nice relaxing game... but trying to hoard all the cards that you need and the ones you know your opponent needs in order to score makes every discard painful. The game quickly turns, mean, miserly, and passive aggressive.
Schotten Totten by the good Dr. Knizia also gives this feeling, though it's less pronounced. Playing a card commits to a position and reveals your plan. Playing that second eight means your opponent can automatically win the stone with a 1-2-3 in green -- maybe you should wait to play it until you see him go for a set or an off-color run. The problem is, you quickly feel that way about all the cards in your hand.
Schotten Totten is on my list to try! I feel like that's a major gap in my gaming knowledge and experience. I recently picked up a used copy of the 2000 GMT Battle Line version which I think is either the same or very similar. So that's on my shelf (of shame) to try soon.
The nice part is that it's a relatively short game. Mechanically easy to learn and doesn't overstay it's welcome. But if you are playing to win.... whooooo wow is it a rough one.
“simple rules … tough choices … think about your opponent with every move” — I mean, that’s just a list of what we want from a game, right? (It struck a chord because I am trying to put a game together at the moment that aspires to something like that paradigm, but with the added wrinkle that at the end there is no objective measure of who won. ;) )
We might distinguish between [a] gifting your opponent points and [b] gifting your opponent something of unknown value. The first isn’t really stressful if the opponent has to give you points, too. It is giving the opponent something of unknown value that builds the stress … but also the fun!
I think it depends on the type of fun you want and who you are making the game for. I know sometimes I want a lot more complexity in rules (Cuba Libre / COIN for example) and other times I don't want to think too hard so tough choices are too much. Depends on the day!
I'm curious... What's the core concept or pitch for your game?!
I guess the lift pitch would be “consequences with card votes and a choice of dice.” Each round, each player proposes a short bit of narrative, three make it to dice, and one or two are appended to the tale. You may not be able to tell whether a player is proposing something in the hope of getting it into the story or to force a choice. It has player roles, but they rotate. It is a kick against “storytelling” or “narrative” games which — to me — don’t live up to their billing. ;)
The theme of this game sounds awesome. Also it's nice to have some 1v1 games with more direct competition. "Point salad" games are most of the time something for a bigger crowd, I feel like.
Is it not, at heart, an abstract game? An abstract game in fancy dress? Wouldn’t it still work if flayed of all theme?
Contrast with a wargame — a conflict simulation — where the ideal is that if a player understands the kind of warfare simulated (if she is a “good general”), she can leverage that know-how to win even without thinking much about the rules. (It is possible to quibble with this, of course, but for brevity …)
Like many things I think the abstract <----> thematic range doesn't have a clear dividing line, just like the TTRPG <------> board game range. Certainly The Field of the Cloth of Gold isn't fully abstract (e.g. go or othello) but it's not highly thematic. Probably falls somewhere in the middle. I do appreciate the application of theme as it's handled. Everyone has different preferences! :)
As you can tell from my reply above, I am wrestling with the idea of a game whose “content” isn’t a skin over an abstract game — where there is no reason to pick one move over another in a “flayed” version of the game.
I had not heard of this game, thanks for the review. Although it strikes me a bit odd to call Agricola a point salad game. It's very easy to have a starving family if you're not careful.
Yeah, I thought someone might call that out! :) Agricola is always included in lists of "point salad" games because there are many ways to score, but I agree. It has a very punishing mechanism built into it, including the ability to go negative in score. I had one 3-player game end with: 20, 19, and -29. Rough.
Perhaps Feast for Odin would be a better example if trying to stay in that same genre. I don't recall that one being quite as punishing.
Good comment. Thank you!
This is a killer title, and one of the best things I've read all week (and i read quality!)
That is very kind. Thank you! ☺️
Spacebiff recently had an article about different types of fun and at the time had a hard time coming up with examples of the top of my head of agonizing fun. This seems like it fits the bill!
Agonizing fun definitely works!
Heck yeah, I love this game. It's so tightly wound. What a pleasant surprise to see it here!
"Tightly wound" is a great way to describe it!
Every Hollandspiele game I've tried has been interesting and more than a little stressful. I wrote about The Wars of Marcus Aurelius a while back... and have yet to win a game of it. I've also played Endurance but it's such a challenging (mechanically and emotionally) game that I haven't thought of a good way to write about it. Hard to compress that one into a 1200 word blog post.
Also, unrelated: Loving your MÖRKTOBER posts!
Thank you!
Yes, Hollandspiele have got something going on that resonates deeply with me. I need to get my hands on more of their games!
When I think of agonizing decisions, I think of card driven games. The one that most springs to mind is Quartermaster General 1914. Each player will have a hand of seven cards (until they run out...) but on each turn you can only play one card for its main action, plus prepare a card for future sustain or support actions. The game only lasts 17 turns, so you will only ever play a maximum of 17 cards for their main action, but most of them you want to play, so you always have to turn away from good options. It's the kind of pain I enjoy.
That sounds fun! Do you think this version would be similar? https://en.boardgamearena.com/gamepanel?game=quartermastergeneraleastfront
Having never played any other Quartermaster General games, I can't say.
Agricola really does not fit the description.
Once you have enough/all points in one category, it gets detrimental to further invest in this category.
And if you define point salad as "every action yields points", then it does not belong to this category either. Getting wood does not yield points. Becoming first player does not. Just as examples.
I've played two games that make you feel like every move is a bad one. Arboretum is beautiful, and sounds like it should be a nice relaxing game... but trying to hoard all the cards that you need and the ones you know your opponent needs in order to score makes every discard painful. The game quickly turns, mean, miserly, and passive aggressive.
Schotten Totten by the good Dr. Knizia also gives this feeling, though it's less pronounced. Playing a card commits to a position and reveals your plan. Playing that second eight means your opponent can automatically win the stone with a 1-2-3 in green -- maybe you should wait to play it until you see him go for a set or an off-color run. The problem is, you quickly feel that way about all the cards in your hand.
Schotten Totten is on my list to try! I feel like that's a major gap in my gaming knowledge and experience. I recently picked up a used copy of the 2000 GMT Battle Line version which I think is either the same or very similar. So that's on my shelf (of shame) to try soon.
Haven't played this, but now I want to!
The nice part is that it's a relatively short game. Mechanically easy to learn and doesn't overstay it's welcome. But if you are playing to win.... whooooo wow is it a rough one.
“simple rules … tough choices … think about your opponent with every move” — I mean, that’s just a list of what we want from a game, right? (It struck a chord because I am trying to put a game together at the moment that aspires to something like that paradigm, but with the added wrinkle that at the end there is no objective measure of who won. ;) )
We might distinguish between [a] gifting your opponent points and [b] gifting your opponent something of unknown value. The first isn’t really stressful if the opponent has to give you points, too. It is giving the opponent something of unknown value that builds the stress … but also the fun!
I think it depends on the type of fun you want and who you are making the game for. I know sometimes I want a lot more complexity in rules (Cuba Libre / COIN for example) and other times I don't want to think too hard so tough choices are too much. Depends on the day!
I'm curious... What's the core concept or pitch for your game?!
I guess the lift pitch would be “consequences with card votes and a choice of dice.” Each round, each player proposes a short bit of narrative, three make it to dice, and one or two are appended to the tale. You may not be able to tell whether a player is proposing something in the hope of getting it into the story or to force a choice. It has player roles, but they rotate. It is a kick against “storytelling” or “narrative” games which — to me — don’t live up to their billing. ;)
The theme of this game sounds awesome. Also it's nice to have some 1v1 games with more direct competition. "Point salad" games are most of the time something for a bigger crowd, I feel like.
If you like obscure, weird, nerdy historical themes like I do…. then yes, it’s a good one. 😅
Interesting point about player count and point salads. I’m going to need to think about that. You might be on to something there.
Is it not, at heart, an abstract game? An abstract game in fancy dress? Wouldn’t it still work if flayed of all theme?
Contrast with a wargame — a conflict simulation — where the ideal is that if a player understands the kind of warfare simulated (if she is a “good general”), she can leverage that know-how to win even without thinking much about the rules. (It is possible to quibble with this, of course, but for brevity …)
Like many things I think the abstract <----> thematic range doesn't have a clear dividing line, just like the TTRPG <------> board game range. Certainly The Field of the Cloth of Gold isn't fully abstract (e.g. go or othello) but it's not highly thematic. Probably falls somewhere in the middle. I do appreciate the application of theme as it's handled. Everyone has different preferences! :)
As you can tell from my reply above, I am wrestling with the idea of a game whose “content” isn’t a skin over an abstract game — where there is no reason to pick one move over another in a “flayed” version of the game.