Player Interaction in Spots, Queensland, and Tribes of the Wind
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 18 сен 2024
- In this video, I discuss player interaction - or the lack of it - in three drafting games: Queensland, Spots, and Tribes of the Wind. You can find out more about these games on their BoardGameGeek pages:
• Spots: boardgamegeek....
• Queensland: boardgamegeek....
• Tribes of the Wind: boardgamegeek....
Starting time for coverage of each game:
01:45 - Queensland
13:50 - Spots
24:45 - Tribes of the Wind
I bought Spots for my sister and we've had a lot of fun with it. I love that tricks change from game to game which helps keep it fresh. Would love an expansion. I do agree this works better as a 2 player game (and solo game too). 10/10
I agree that it is a trend we are seeing. I miss the days of very interactive euro games (Catan, Tikal, El Grande, and so on...). Nowadays it's all about having your own player board where you "make things". I understand that nobody likes to prepare for several turns in advance to achieve something and suddenly this is destroyed by another player, and therefore the "steal a card from another player" or "steal a resource from another player" is discarded by game authors because they want to avoid frustration, and I would not like a game like that (what is usually called "take that mechanism"). However, where is the "trade stuff with other players" as in Catan? Where is the "everybody plays on the same board?" I like Ark Nova (not my favourite game, but I like it), but why aren't all the players building the same big zoo ? And I am not talking about a cooperative game, but rather about a way to make the game more engaging by having one big zoo created by many players in a competitive way.
But at the same time, I really enjoy Cascadia, so ... maybe I like multiplayer solitaire sometimes 🤔
i think it's a pretty common misconception from those preferring some player screwage in their games to think that those of us who don't want it are adverse simply because we don't want to be hit by external forces. That's not always the case (in fact, that's often not the case at all as we enjoy games where the system itself beats us up and thwarts us). Instead, we don't want to be put in a position where we have to make active choices to subvert the plans of our friends and family. For some of us, it's simply impossible to find that as anything other than awful :)
And the nice thing is, there are so many forward thinking designs these days that focus on potential positive interaction between players... to me, this is so much more innovative than yet another twist on "i steal you're stuff, i break your stuff, i tax your stuff, i (insert negative verb here) your stuff" :) i did a whole video on this half a decade ago (ruclips.net/video/sceNBp3yYsw/видео.html) and the industry has continued to find new twists every year (in '22 we had come together, free radicals, shapers of gaia, founders of teotihuacan, and plenty more that push this envelope)! :)
@@rahdo • I welcome both positive and negative player interaction. Accidental or incidental interaction, on the other hand, is a no-go. If I want to worry about defeating the game system, I'd prefer to play a co-operative game so that I can ideally work with others to make it happen. -WEM
Queensland sounds better with the "all players" tile being a mandatory move upon everyone. Seems this needs to be a permanent rule (or at least a rule that can be an option at setup).
It's an easy change to make if you want to play that way! -WEM
@@boardgamegeek Did you like the game better played that way?
@@tonyallen4265 • Yes, I did. In general, I like games that allow other players to push you around, giving you an incentive to anticipate what might happen and how you might respond. -WEM
@@boardgamegeek I think I'll get Queensland just because of the that rule change. Sounds like a cool misreading of the rules on your part that improved the game enough for my tastes. Thanks!
Btw, always love your style of board game reviews. Keep up the good work.
@@tonyallen4265 • Glad the videos are helpful, Tony! -WEM
Good Point, Martin. A similar opinion has been posted here a year ago:
ruclips.net/video/YzUQdtzcyfM/видео.html&ab_channel=Actualol
When the personal player's board is the main focus of the game, instead of the central one (if there's any). To me, it's nothing but "multiplayer solitaire", and although generally, I prefer real interaction among players (Much more than just drafting), I cannot deny there are some games of this style that I really like.
For those watching: the relevant part is 0:45 to 2:30. But yes, I remember this video, and this part really spoke to me.
Player interaction is tricky in games where you build stuff. Overlaying each other's builds is impossible with normal board game assets. Old games have small generic sets of "blue houses, red houses, green houses, yellow houses", so those can be placed on the same board. With increasing complexity of games - meaning variety of components - shared boards become personal boards, and the player interaction is moved to the resource aspect of the game. At that point, getting interaction options to mess with other player's boards is just sabotage. And that's far too frustrating, especially with scaling player count.
I still hold that Spots is not worth $25-30 for what is essentially cards and dice, especially considering that most gamers are gonna have dice laying around that could be used for the game.
I would counter that Spots is aimed not at hobby gamers with a plethora of dice, but at a mainstream audience that would likely need everything in one box. -WEM
In my opinion the litmus test for direct player interaction can one player make another players score go down.
Does drafting a tile that someone else wanted count? In one sense, yes, you're keeping them from scoring points, but their score doesn't literally drop. -WEM
In my mind no that doesn’t count as *direct*. You might not see or want that play. Or realize it’s impact. That’s like saying I rolled a Yahtzee so in order to win you need to take a high risk play and try to get your own. Interactions take many forms but direct isn’t an interaction of realizations of possibilities (suboptimal or not) but of actual.
There are many ways to affect each other without causing opponents' scores to go down. Tigris & Euphrates is very "directly" interactive, and player scores can only go up. Many the actions revolve around giving other players points, or reducing their ability to get points.
You need to count losing vectors (score that has been earned but not tallied) as score loss.
i would say that plays can *indrectly* affect a players *end* score are interactive. There are many games with area control that do not affect immediate scoring yet will affect other players ability to score
I like your commitment to theme by playing a game set in Australia upside down.
Although, being set in Queensland, it really should be played backwards for complete authenticity..
Also, you'll only end up with dead livestock by driving Cane Toads into dams. They're poisonous and a single one can foul quite a large body of water.
The correct way of dealing with Cane Toads is, due to the fact that they like to sit in a very "chin up" manner, is to flog them right under the jaw with a cricket bat or golf club.
Thanks for the additional details! I saw that 1988 documentary, "Cane Toads: An Unnatural History", when it came out, but I remember little more about the situation than "Toads bad". -WEM