I have played a lot of games of Root. 50, to be exact. I have learned so much from every game, but the most important lesson I’ve learned is that it is not a good idea to boil the game down to points and worrying about balance. Root is an ecosystem. The ideals of attacking the leader, catch up mechanics, king making, all of these are pointless in the ecosystem. There is push and pull. There are delicate balances of power that if disturbed, can create a vacuum. You need to play the players, the board is irrelevant. For example, 4 player game: otters, cats, birds, vagabond. We were all sitting pretty even. The otters had favor of the foxes in their hand, but no one was too keen on crafting, so they let it sit there. The otters crafted it themselves, and the board was devastated. The cats lost all of their wood, the birds lost key roosts and fell into turmoil, and they took so much cardboard off the table, the otters shot ahead and their victory was imminent. A vacuum in the ecosystem was created after destroying two of the players, opening the door for the unaffected vagabond. The other players only sought revenge against the riverfolk, attacking them and cheering for the vagabond who quickly went hostile and systematically took out otters. But if we go back, the vagabond should not have won. Why? Well if players had just looked, the otters were almost out of trading posts. They didn’t have any crafting cards in their hand. No one was going to buy services to allow them to score dividends. They may have been in the lead by a wide margin, but there was no way they could generate enough points to win. But the game is about the players. And the ones who were destroyed by the river folks actions would not let the attack go unanswered. There is so much cause and effect in a game of root. Negotiation, table politics, deception, all is present. There is no king making, no catch up mechanics. Only the ecosystem.
Yeah, I played a game exactly like this one where I also pulled out a favour card that gave the Vagabond a chance to leap forward. I think favour cards just have this thing where using them is a double edged sword as everyone at the table will hate your guts for using them and start attacking you even if you're not winning anymore.
I notice I don't like attaching the so called "meta stage" to the game. By that I mean I don't like it when games get personal, someone gets frustrated from someone else's strategic decition and decides to destroy their game as revenge. That just takes the fun out of the game really.
I also like the narrative aspect of the game. I played the Lizards in a 3 player game and was far behind the Otters and the Cats. By the end the Otters outscored the Cats by 4 or 5 points but they basically ruled just 2 clearings. The cats were almost entirely gone. My lizards on the other hand ruled almost half of the woodlands , which was far to late to score me enough points, but I felt a genuine satisfaction in having spread my faction this much and basically populating the forrest. I felt like I reached my goal, to secure the lizards position in the woodlands, although I came in last. This was a very nice realization for me
I have had both! Close games and blow out games. From my experience from playing a lot of Root... the more experienced everyone gets with the game the closer the scores will be. As everyone learns how to mess everyone else up and stop uprising. Cats are a tough win it really takes a lot of early game pressure to pull it off or luckily not have many people attacking you. Which doesn’t happen! Favor cards are also a comeback mechanic as it can ruin some while ruin others not half as much. Also cutest vagabond is the Tinker... obviously... 😂
The thing is, the more I play Root, the more I learn that sometimes not attacking is better, because you never know when you will need other's help to turn the tides. Sometimes you destroy 1 guy that seemed to be doing reasonably good, but then you spend so many resources that you can't stop the other guy who now is uncontested to score points. But I agree in general. I think the hirelings will try to tackle this issue.
I find that when I play certain games, after the first few games of trying to win I try to manipulate and orchestrate events to let the other people have fun. It sucks being frustrated and not being on a even playing field with the rest of the players so I've been secretly trying to just make games more fun for the others playing, even if that's not very fun for me. I do enjoy it when others enjoy the things I want them to enjoy, so there's that.
That's a really nice thing to do, though I'm sure your friends want you to have fun too. Don't get too caught up in taking care of others that you neglect your own happiness.
It's exciting that the new expansion includes a minor faction mechanic that will act as a catch up mechanic by giving the losing player passive abilities, extra meeples to move, and the ability to take two turns in a row.
My problem with it is in any game with no way to come out of last place the people who are losing start to play way differently and sometimes vindictively because their strategy doesn't matter anymore.
Thats part of the game though, you have to play diplomatically, if you knock someone out early it means that you know you are going to have to deal with them trying to drag you back for the rest of the game.
And thus spake Patrick: "let there be hirelings". And there were hirelings. And Patrick beheld the hirelings and said "hirelings are the best comeback mechanism ever conceived". On a serious note, I had my first experience with this yesterday, where a player who was quite behind recovered and eventually won because of hireling help (paired with good decision-making). Hope you'll make a video on the new expansion soon.
Root is one of those games I quickly became enthralled by. Wanting to learn the factions, how they play best, and soaking up all the information about the game I can find. This is generally the hallmark of a great game, and it doesn't happen all that often for me in boardgames. However... A lot of the points that makes the game interesting also are some of the biggest flaws. Primarily the 'player self-balancing' part. Like you said in the video "appearing weak" is a huge plus. This also means; lying/convincing your friends that you are no threat but someone else is. Once you understand this ploy however, it becomes painfully transparent and ends up with players just bullshitting around. Someones opinion your normally respect, now becomes meaningless during the game. In a lot of tactical/strategy games I personally like discussing optimal moves, even with my opponent "what would you do in my situation". This greatly speeds up and strengthens the learning phase of a game for both players. In Root however, the answer most of the time simply boils down to: "Have others do the balancing part for you, while you profit without doing any of the heavy lifting, and sneakily win". Because of this, a lot of my Root games in the end felt a little underwhelming. Often when I won it felt because I was left alone for too long (Woodland Alliance and Vagebond being notorious at this). And the same reasoning applies to any winner: He/she didn't really win but "the others messed up the balancing". Sure there are great games thrown into the mix, but many are in my opinion also a little unsatisfying. (I'm talking about the ending/post-discussion only btw, the gameplay mid-game remains enjoyable) At the end of the day, Root is a 3vs1 gangup game on whoever appears strongest. The equation for 'who' and 'when' this is, is the main puzzle to solve once you're familiar with the basics. It also heavily depends on your playgroup and revolves around metagaming, which I typically really enjoy. At the end of the day though, it is a gangup game.
I've had differing experiences with this. Some times it definitely felt like the only way to win was to gang up on the leader, but others it was balanced enough throughout that there was no one clear leader to gang up on. I think if each player knows their "role" so to speak, it becomes a much more balanced experience, but if playing with at least one new player, that's rarely the case.
Haven’t you tried playing it in a 2 vs 2 with house rules? I would try it myself but I have only had the chance to play it two times in almost a whole year
A good comeback mechanic would be, if at the start of your turn you have the least amount of points, draw a card. It’s not a large comeback but a nice nudge to keep last place competitive and give them a small advantage. Obviously avoid everyone’s first turn or triggers once a player reaches 10 points.
I would say if you have the least point after your turn, after the 5 card limit. The issue is that if two players are left behind, it would not help them so much as most of the time non of them would draw. But to draw 1 card for each player with a 10+ point lead on you after turn end, would allow some exciting comeback strategies
The Vagrant is obv the cutest It feels very hard for some players to come back sometimes. Certain factions have it harder than others, but if you're down by 15 or so... that's a hard recovery.
When i play with more than one person with new players they consistently let the cats win to the point they think they are OP. Birds I still feel are the most balanced(and fun) faction cause they're the only one with a mechanic to lose points.
Play well enough to get 10 VP and play a Dominance card. I've come back from 3rd or 4th place a few times like this. If you're losing hard enough to know you have no chances at all, you likely are not playing very well. Playing the Challenges in the digital version taught me a lot.
I kinda agree with what was commented below. Imo, games where someone falls below are always due to that person doing mistakes. But more often than not, said "mistakes" are that they didn't call for harassing this or that player instead of them. Especially considering the real threat is usually the burst factions, not necessarily the one with a clear immediate board presence.
I guess Leder games watched this video and decided a change needed to be made. The new Expansion introduces a come-back mechanism that may make games more tense and exciting.
I've heard a lot of great stuff about that new expansion. Might have to check it out, even though I don't play Root that much anymore. I also hear it works a lot better 2 player now.
Pretty much every strategy board game i played have this problem, but at least Root matches are quick and loosers are more agitated for a rematch than frustrated. Its not even remotely close to frustration levels you would have playing 12 hours long session of twilight imperium and sitting on 2 victory points till the end because you were unlucky enough to start between letnev and sardakk n'orr.
Dominance Cards? Though, I agree that the last place is banking on the fact that 2nd and 3rd place are keeping 1st place in check. Definitely a need for a constant set of checks and balances to be occurring. And if those don't happen it's not very fun.
In the two games I’ve played, there’s definitely been a clear loser that’s out of the game. Game definitely also has kingmaking issues, with the Vagabond and other players able to effectively determine who wins by targeting what “appears” to be the biggest threat near game end.
I feel like, in strategy games like these where players actively disrupt each others play, a certainty of losing is kind of on the players. No one should be fooled by the size of the cats or the devastation of a favor cards into attacking someone who is not as likely to win. I think the balancing in these games can and should be done by all players, attentively looking not just at how to score points, but also how to disrupt the play of the player with the best chance to win (leaving the loser alone).
This is precisely why I have such a hard time pulling the trigger on this game. It looks amazing and sounds like it offers so much, depth and complexity but I would hate to get all the stuff for it (I know I would eventually) and it be the game that my friends dread playing.
I think Root is on Tabletop Simulator if you want to try before you buy. If this is something you're really concerned about, probably a good idea to test it out first. I know that a lot of people don't really mind this aspect of the game, but for some it is a dealbreaker.
All vagabonds look great (except the vargrant :p ) It would be nice if the last place player could form a coalition (aka: become a vassal) with someone else and become tied to their victory somehow.
Yeah but it is also built in to the game that the cats make a lot of points early on. There is an asymmetry in the timing of the points also so I would not call it unbalanced. If you fall behind hard with the cats early on, you just need to work on your cat strategy, that should not happen. The biggest problem with a player that falls so hard behind that there is no chance for him is that he becomes the kingmaker ... he can choose who is going to win. That kind of spoils the game.
In theory they're well balanced against each other. What tends to make the difference is how people interact with each faction. Though there are definitely circumstances where some factions shine more than others.
There is a point buy system shown in the Underworld Expansion to allow for good quality games. Cats, Moles and Eyrie are at the top whilst Lizards, Crows, and Alliance are near the bottom.
I don't think you'd have to make a different come back mechanic for each faction, it would be better if there was a universal one that was shareable, they are asymmetric enough I think.
I think you might just because of the different pace at which each faction scores points. The Alliance being 10 points behind is very different from the Marquise being 10 points behind. I've been in last place as the Alliance and won, but I've never been able to pull ahead from any big setback as the cats. But then, I'm not a game designer, so who knows.
I do mention the dominance cards at around 0:50, but in my experience they don't really help players who are losing so much as players who have a strong board presence but aren't in 1st place.
![I played the worst faction in the game so you don't have to. [Playthrough]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/1FBhgjadbzg/mqdefault.jpg)
I have played a lot of games of Root. 50, to be exact. I have learned so much from every game, but the most important lesson I’ve learned is that it is not a good idea to boil the game down to points and worrying about balance. Root is an ecosystem. The ideals of attacking the leader, catch up mechanics, king making, all of these are pointless in the ecosystem. There is push and pull. There are delicate balances of power that if disturbed, can create a vacuum. You need to play the players, the board is irrelevant.
For example, 4 player game: otters, cats, birds, vagabond. We were all sitting pretty even. The otters had favor of the foxes in their hand, but no one was too keen on crafting, so they let it sit there. The otters crafted it themselves, and the board was devastated. The cats lost all of their wood, the birds lost key roosts and fell into turmoil, and they took so much cardboard off the table, the otters shot ahead and their victory was imminent. A vacuum in the ecosystem was created after destroying two of the players, opening the door for the unaffected vagabond. The other players only sought revenge against the riverfolk, attacking them and cheering for the vagabond who quickly went hostile and systematically took out otters. But if we go back, the vagabond should not have won. Why? Well if players had just looked, the otters were almost out of trading posts. They didn’t have any crafting cards in their hand. No one was going to buy services to allow them to score dividends. They may have been in the lead by a wide margin, but there was no way they could generate enough points to win. But the game is about the players. And the ones who were destroyed by the river folks actions would not let the attack go unanswered.
There is so much cause and effect in a game of root. Negotiation, table politics, deception, all is present. There is no king making, no catch up mechanics. Only the ecosystem.
Yeah, I played a game exactly like this one where I also pulled out a favour card that gave the Vagabond a chance to leap forward. I think favour cards just have this thing where using them is a double edged sword as everyone at the table will hate your guts for using them and start attacking you even if you're not winning anymore.
I notice I don't like attaching the so called "meta stage" to the game. By that I mean I don't like it when games get personal, someone gets frustrated from someone else's strategic decition and decides to destroy their game as revenge. That just takes the fun out of the game really.
I also like the narrative aspect of the game. I played the Lizards in a 3 player game and was far behind the Otters and the Cats. By the end the Otters outscored the Cats by 4 or 5 points but they basically ruled just 2 clearings. The cats were almost entirely gone. My lizards on the other hand ruled almost half of the woodlands , which was far to late to score me enough points, but I felt a genuine satisfaction in having spread my faction this much and basically populating the forrest. I felt like I reached my goal, to secure the lizards position in the woodlands, although I came in last. This was a very nice realization for me
I have had both! Close games and blow out games. From my experience from playing a lot of Root... the more experienced everyone gets with the game the closer the scores will be. As everyone learns how to mess everyone else up and stop uprising. Cats are a tough win it really takes a lot of early game pressure to pull it off or luckily not have many people attacking you. Which doesn’t happen!
Favor cards are also a comeback mechanic as it can ruin some while ruin others not half as much.
Also cutest vagabond is the Tinker... obviously... 😂
Ooh, I'm sorry the answer we were looking for was Vagrant. So close.
.
.
.
(jk)
The thing is, the more I play Root, the more I learn that sometimes not attacking is better, because you never know when you will need other's help to turn the tides. Sometimes you destroy 1 guy that seemed to be doing reasonably good, but then you spend so many resources that you can't stop the other guy who now is uncontested to score points.
But I agree in general. I think the hirelings will try to tackle this issue.
I find that when I play certain games, after the first few games of trying to win I try to manipulate and orchestrate events to let the other people have fun. It sucks being frustrated and not being on a even playing field with the rest of the players so I've been secretly trying to just make games more fun for the others playing, even if that's not very fun for me. I do enjoy it when others enjoy the things I want them to enjoy, so there's that.
That's a really nice thing to do, though I'm sure your friends want you to have fun too. Don't get too caught up in taking care of others that you neglect your own happiness.
It's exciting that the new expansion includes a minor faction mechanic that will act as a catch up mechanic by giving the losing player passive abilities, extra meeples to move, and the ability to take two turns in a row.
Oh cool! I haven't looked into it, but that sounds exciting.
Lol. Sick reference pear my dude.
Haha, thanks!
My problem with it is in any game with no way to come out of last place the people who are losing start to play way differently and sometimes vindictively because their strategy doesn't matter anymore.
My group has started referring to this act as "collecting sheep," because of a friend who would often get very frustrated playing Catan.
Thats part of the game though, you have to play diplomatically, if you knock someone out early it means that you know you are going to have to deal with them trying to drag you back for the rest of the game.
And thus spake Patrick: "let there be hirelings". And there were hirelings. And Patrick beheld the hirelings and said "hirelings are the best comeback mechanism ever conceived". On a serious note, I had my first experience with this yesterday, where a player who was quite behind recovered and eventually won because of hireling help (paired with good decision-making). Hope you'll make a video on the new expansion soon.
Root is one of those games I quickly became enthralled by. Wanting to learn the factions, how they play best, and soaking up all the information about the game I can find. This is generally the hallmark of a great game, and it doesn't happen all that often for me in boardgames.
However... A lot of the points that makes the game interesting also are some of the biggest flaws. Primarily the 'player self-balancing' part.
Like you said in the video "appearing weak" is a huge plus. This also means; lying/convincing your friends that you are no threat but someone else is. Once you understand this ploy however, it becomes painfully transparent and ends up with players just bullshitting around. Someones opinion your normally respect, now becomes meaningless during the game.
In a lot of tactical/strategy games I personally like discussing optimal moves, even with my opponent "what would you do in my situation". This greatly speeds up and strengthens the learning phase of a game for both players. In Root however, the answer most of the time simply boils down to: "Have others do the balancing part for you, while you profit without doing any of the heavy lifting, and sneakily win".
Because of this, a lot of my Root games in the end felt a little underwhelming. Often when I won it felt because I was left alone for too long (Woodland Alliance and Vagebond being notorious at this). And the same reasoning applies to any winner: He/she didn't really win but "the others messed up the balancing".
Sure there are great games thrown into the mix, but many are in my opinion also a little unsatisfying. (I'm talking about the ending/post-discussion only btw, the gameplay mid-game remains enjoyable)
At the end of the day, Root is a 3vs1 gangup game on whoever appears strongest.
The equation for 'who' and 'when' this is, is the main puzzle to solve once you're familiar with the basics. It also heavily depends on your playgroup and revolves around metagaming, which I typically really enjoy.
At the end of the day though, it is a gangup game.
I've had differing experiences with this. Some times it definitely felt like the only way to win was to gang up on the leader, but others it was balanced enough throughout that there was no one clear leader to gang up on. I think if each player knows their "role" so to speak, it becomes a much more balanced experience, but if playing with at least one new player, that's rarely the case.
Haven’t you tried playing it in a 2 vs 2 with house rules? I would try it myself but I have only had the chance to play it two times in almost a whole year
We all know the vagrant is the cutest vagabond
correct!
A good comeback mechanic would be, if at the start of your turn you have the least amount of points, draw a card. It’s not a large comeback but a nice nudge to keep last place competitive and give them a small advantage. Obviously avoid everyone’s first turn or triggers once a player reaches 10 points.
Ooh, I like this a lot. It would probably affect some factions more than others, but it sounds like a good little boost.
I would say if you have the least point after your turn, after the 5 card limit.
The issue is that if two players are left behind, it would not help them so much as most of the time non of them would draw.
But to draw 1 card for each player with a 10+ point lead on you after turn end, would allow some exciting comeback strategies
The Vagrant is obv the cutest
It feels very hard for some players to come back sometimes. Certain factions have it harder than others, but if you're down by 15 or so... that's a hard recovery.
You'd be surprised at how few people get that right.
And yeah, some factions definitely need momentum and if they lose it, they're toast.
When i play with more than one person with new players they consistently let the cats win to the point they think they are OP. Birds I still feel are the most balanced(and fun) faction cause they're the only one with a mechanic to lose points.
Play well enough to get 10 VP and play a Dominance card. I've come back from 3rd or 4th place a few times like this. If you're losing hard enough to know you have no chances at all, you likely are not playing very well. Playing the Challenges in the digital version taught me a lot.
I say the scoundrel is the cutest :)
I kinda agree with what was commented below.
Imo, games where someone falls below are always due to that person doing mistakes. But more often than not, said "mistakes" are that they didn't call for harassing this or that player instead of them.
Especially considering the real threat is usually the burst factions, not necessarily the one with a clear immediate board presence.
I guess Leder games watched this video and decided a change needed to be made. The new Expansion introduces a come-back mechanism that may make games more tense and exciting.
I've heard a lot of great stuff about that new expansion. Might have to check it out, even though I don't play Root that much anymore. I also hear it works a lot better 2 player now.
Let see what the hirelings are gonna do to the balance!
Pretty much every strategy board game i played have this problem, but at least Root matches are quick and loosers are more agitated for a rematch than frustrated. Its not even remotely close to frustration levels you would have playing 12 hours long session of twilight imperium and sitting on 2 victory points till the end because you were unlucky enough to start between letnev and sardakk n'orr.
Yeah, TI4 definitely has this issue as well. Though at least with TI4 it's easier to identify the bigger threats. Root tends to obscure this at times.
Dominance Cards?
Though, I agree that the last place is banking on the fact that 2nd and 3rd place are keeping 1st place in check. Definitely a need for a constant set of checks and balances to be occurring. And if those don't happen it's not very fun.
I know this is a year old, but the arbitur is definitely the cutest
Ooh, so close!
In the two games I’ve played, there’s definitely been a clear loser that’s out of the game. Game definitely also has kingmaking issues, with the Vagabond and other players able to effectively determine who wins by targeting what “appears” to be the biggest threat near game end.
That's been my experience as well a few times, though my friends tend to purposefully avoid kingmaking whenever possible.
I feel like, in strategy games like these where players actively disrupt each others play, a certainty of losing is kind of on the players. No one should be fooled by the size of the cats or the devastation of a favor cards into attacking someone who is not as likely to win. I think the balancing in these games can and should be done by all players, attentively looking not just at how to score points, but also how to disrupt the play of the player with the best chance to win (leaving the loser alone).
This is precisely why I have such a hard time pulling the trigger on this game. It looks amazing and sounds like it offers so much, depth and complexity but I would hate to get all the stuff for it (I know I would eventually) and it be the game that my friends dread playing.
I think Root is on Tabletop Simulator if you want to try before you buy. If this is something you're really concerned about, probably a good idea to test it out first. I know that a lot of people don't really mind this aspect of the game, but for some it is a dealbreaker.
All vagabonds look great (except the vargrant :p )
It would be nice if the last place player could form a coalition (aka: become a vassal) with someone else and become tied to their victory somehow.
It would at minimum keep them engaged in the game until the end.
@@azkaulem Yeah, I agree. I kinda wonder why they didn't include something like that. I'm sure there's a good reason, but it would definitely be nice.
Yeah but it is also built in to the game that the cats make a lot of points early on. There is an asymmetry in the timing of the points also so I would not call it unbalanced. If you fall behind hard with the cats early on, you just need to work on your cat strategy, that should not happen. The biggest problem with a player that falls so hard behind that there is no chance for him is that he becomes the kingmaker ... he can choose who is going to win. That kind of spoils the game.
#trashpanda4life
I find earned victories are more exciting than close, contrived victories.
The new hireling mechanic is upcoming expansion is suppose to balance that, but yeah.... the balance sucks
I think the there should be a root faction teer list
In theory they're well balanced against each other. What tends to make the difference is how people interact with each faction. Though there are definitely circumstances where some factions shine more than others.
There is a point buy system shown in the Underworld Expansion to allow for good quality games. Cats, Moles and Eyrie are at the top whilst Lizards, Crows, and Alliance are near the bottom.
I don't think you'd have to make a different come back mechanic for each faction, it would be better if there was a universal one that was shareable, they are asymmetric enough I think.
I think you might just because of the different pace at which each faction scores points. The Alliance being 10 points behind is very different from the Marquise being 10 points behind. I've been in last place as the Alliance and won, but I've never been able to pull ahead from any big setback as the cats. But then, I'm not a game designer, so who knows.
Why don't talk about dominiation cards ?
I do mention the dominance cards at around 0:50, but in my experience they don't really help players who are losing so much as players who have a strong board presence but aren't in 1st place.