I love the conversation and wanted to give some thoughts that might help if you fellas ever decide to play Root/Brass again. I think ultimately in both games it likely fell flat because of game design theory. In both games there is a large emphasis on player interaction and symbiosis. Just understanding the rules isn’t necessarily enough. But having all players understand how to properly “interact” with other players can really make a difference on whether the game is a success or falls flat. Brass & Root really shine or flounder based on this. With Brass, I think the nature of most players is to think, “how do I build MY line, best use MY coal, how do I make sure no one uses MY beer, etc.” But I think Martin Wallace’s design is meant to evoke a more supplier/consumer interaction. Changing the mindset from these are MY resources, to “I’m going to create this coal mine to incentivize other players to use it, which in turn helps us both,” really changes player choice and strategy. Brass is one of my favorite games because you constantly have that push/pull of wanting to continue your overall strategy, but having to decide when to temporarily pivot and play tactically to do something that can benefit you and another player. And by doing so, hope that what you are doing will help you more than it will help them. Root’s design is even more dependent on having that player symbiosis. But to Ronald’s point, everyone needs to understand all the game mechanics going on with each player. The game is designed for force players into conflict and keep each other in check. So if players don’t fully understand all rules, they typically don’t realize how well or poorly another player is doing. And if players don’t have conflict and keep each other in check, the design starts to fall flat as a faction like the Eyrie can completely run away with the game. And a faction like the Woodland Alliance can struggle if players are avoiding their tokens. I’m not suggesting these were necessarily what happened in your games or that it will change your feelings towards them. But hope you give them another try with this in mind. Loved the video, keep it up!
When I started watching this video, I had trouble figuring out the difference between "fell flat" and "didn't like". I came to the conclusion that, at least for me, "didn't like" means I have an active annoyance towards the game. "Fell flat", on the other hand, means that I don't care and I am doing the bare minimum to get my turn done so the game will be finished more quickly. Carcassonne falls into that category for me. I sort of straddle the fence when it comes to replaying games. At home, we tend to play the same games at the table because my collection is small (10-15 games). However, I am always reaching for something different when we go to the board game cafe because it is my chance to get some variety.
I'd never tell anyone that they need to love a game they don't love, but I will say a couple of things about Spirit Island: 1. It's my favorite game, BUT... 2. It's only my favorite game once the Branch & Claw expansion is included. That expansion introduces (among a few other minor-ish things) an event deck that really brings the kind of randomness you talked about needing in a co-op. The event deck isn't always as simple as "the bad guys ate extra Cheerios this morning, so they do +1 damage this round". Some of the events actually force the group to make some tough but interesting decisions. All of the expansions include events, but they also introduce some more complex mechanics that aren't really necessary. Branch & Claw, however, elevates the base game tremendously without making it even more complicated. Would I play base Spirit Island again? Yes. Would I be wishing I was playing with expansions? More than anything.
An expansion improved on my main dislike about Carcassonne. In The Princess and The Dragon, the dragon makes meeples go back to my hand. So, now I don't have to avoid using my meeples; some of them will probably come back to me. Tactically having to defer using my meeples was earlier my main frustration there. Better now.
Either Inns&Cathedrals or Traders&Builders or both for Carcassone. If you don’t like it multiplayer, try it with 2 players, very different game and personally I much prefer it at two.
I completely understand and agree about Brass. I got it because I love me some med/heavy euros and BGG kept screaming that it’s the quintessential board game of all time! Then I played it and my brain could barely wrap itself around the mechanics and strategies. Fast forward 4 months and Nucleum arrived with similar mechanics but much more digestible for my brain. Why??? I have no flippin’ idea! It just was, even though its considered “heavier”. Something is just more satisfying in Nucleum. BUT, I do still wanna try Brass again. It shall not best me! Great vid, guys.
I've got Nucleum punched and even 3d printed out an insert - I'm ready! But I'll also keep trying with Brass, but maybe I don't need to own it anymore.
got root a few weeks ago. me and my son tried to work it out played once then realised on introducing to wife and younger son that I had no words to explain this game to them at all. I think u need to just play it. dont teach just keep going. But I am worried that people after just 4/5 games are already starting to not want to play it. I want to work it out so badly hahahahaha.
I (Jesse) picked up the digital copy - I'll keep trying! Root players look like they are having a lot of fun! The art helps A LOT for me. It looks stunning.
I really enjoy Brass (I think I taught it to you poorly as well). Terra Nova falls for me, I don't get it, I don't enjoy it (Gaia Project as well). However, I do like Age of Innovation. Not even sure what makes them that different, but I enjoyed that version. Second popular game that fell flat for me was Great Western Trail - that game is awful!!!!!
The Terra Mystica family of games all feel quite similar. I feel like Nova takes a lot of stress away and makes for a more casual, easy to teach experience. And GWT fell flat? Wow! Do you like other Pfister games? I'd like to get a few games of Maracaibo in to really figure it out. I've also enjoyed Skymines. Maybe circle around back to GWT with one of the heavier ones (Argentina/New Zealand).
Hey you need time stamps this is a long video I may be more interested in hearing you talk about one game than another I shouldn't have to search around to find the next topic. Also Root sucks I agree. I just feel like it's more complicated munchkin. Oh no guys he's going to win we need to pile on him and punish, oh no now this guy is winning we need to pile on him. Ooop I just scored 7 points I win game's over.
I love the conversation and wanted to give some thoughts that might help if you fellas ever decide to play Root/Brass again.
I think ultimately in both games it likely fell flat because of game design theory. In both games there is a large emphasis on player interaction and symbiosis. Just understanding the rules isn’t necessarily enough. But having all players understand how to properly “interact” with other players can really make a difference on whether the game is a success or falls flat. Brass & Root really shine or flounder based on this.
With Brass, I think the nature of most players is to think, “how do I build MY line, best use MY coal, how do I make sure no one uses MY beer, etc.” But I think Martin Wallace’s design is meant to evoke a more supplier/consumer interaction. Changing the mindset from these are MY resources, to “I’m going to create this coal mine to incentivize other players to use it, which in turn helps us both,” really changes player choice and strategy. Brass is one of my favorite games because you constantly have that push/pull of wanting to continue your overall strategy, but having to decide when to temporarily pivot and play tactically to do something that can benefit you and another player. And by doing so, hope that what you are doing will help you more than it will help them.
Root’s design is even more dependent on having that player symbiosis. But to Ronald’s point, everyone needs to understand all the game mechanics going on with each player. The game is designed for force players into conflict and keep each other in check. So if players don’t fully understand all rules, they typically don’t realize how well or poorly another player is doing. And if players don’t have conflict and keep each other in check, the design starts to fall flat as a faction like the Eyrie can completely run away with the game. And a faction like the Woodland Alliance can struggle if players are avoiding their tokens.
I’m not suggesting these were necessarily what happened in your games or that it will change your feelings towards them. But hope you give them another try with this in mind. Loved the video, keep it up!
When I started watching this video, I had trouble figuring out the difference between "fell flat" and "didn't like". I came to the conclusion that, at least for me, "didn't like" means I have an active annoyance towards the game. "Fell flat", on the other hand, means that I don't care and I am doing the bare minimum to get my turn done so the game will be finished more quickly. Carcassonne falls into that category for me.
I sort of straddle the fence when it comes to replaying games. At home, we tend to play the same games at the table because my collection is small (10-15 games). However, I am always reaching for something different when we go to the board game cafe because it is my chance to get some variety.
Great lists! 46:21 was perfect editing.
I'd never tell anyone that they need to love a game they don't love, but I will say a couple of things about Spirit Island:
1. It's my favorite game, BUT...
2. It's only my favorite game once the Branch & Claw expansion is included.
That expansion introduces (among a few other minor-ish things) an event deck that really brings the kind of randomness you talked about needing in a co-op. The event deck isn't always as simple as "the bad guys ate extra Cheerios this morning, so they do +1 damage this round". Some of the events actually force the group to make some tough but interesting decisions. All of the expansions include events, but they also introduce some more complex mechanics that aren't really necessary. Branch & Claw, however, elevates the base game tremendously without making it even more complicated. Would I play base Spirit Island again? Yes. Would I be wishing I was playing with expansions? More than anything.
I'll keep trying! Are those expansions available in the app?
@@IHeartBoardGames Yep, the first two expansions are in the app!
An expansion improved on my main dislike about Carcassonne. In The Princess and The Dragon, the dragon makes meeples go back to my hand. So, now I don't have to avoid using my meeples; some of them will probably come back to me. Tactically having to defer using my meeples was earlier my main frustration there. Better now.
Either Inns&Cathedrals or Traders&Builders or both for Carcassone. If you don’t like it multiplayer, try it with 2 players, very different game and personally I much prefer it at two.
Hey, I am enjoying your content! Thumbs up from Boston =)
I completely understand and agree about Brass. I got it because I love me some med/heavy euros and BGG kept screaming that it’s the quintessential board game of all time! Then I played it and my brain could barely wrap itself around the mechanics and strategies. Fast forward 4 months and Nucleum arrived with similar mechanics but much more digestible for my brain. Why??? I have no flippin’ idea! It just was, even though its considered “heavier”. Something is just more satisfying in Nucleum. BUT, I do still wanna try Brass again. It shall not best me! Great vid, guys.
I've got Nucleum punched and even 3d printed out an insert - I'm ready! But I'll also keep trying with Brass, but maybe I don't need to own it anymore.
got root a few weeks ago. me and my son tried to work it out played once then realised on introducing to wife and younger son that I had no words to explain this game to them at all. I think u need to just play it. dont teach just keep going. But I am worried that people after just 4/5 games are already starting to not want to play it. I want to work it out so badly hahahahaha.
I (Jesse) picked up the digital copy - I'll keep trying! Root players look like they are having a lot of fun! The art helps A LOT for me. It looks stunning.
I really enjoy Brass (I think I taught it to you poorly as well). Terra Nova falls for me, I don't get it, I don't enjoy it (Gaia Project as well). However, I do like Age of Innovation. Not even sure what makes them that different, but I enjoyed that version. Second popular game that fell flat for me was Great Western Trail - that game is awful!!!!!
The Terra Mystica family of games all feel quite similar. I feel like Nova takes a lot of stress away and makes for a more casual, easy to teach experience. And GWT fell flat? Wow! Do you like other Pfister games? I'd like to get a few games of Maracaibo in to really figure it out. I've also enjoyed Skymines. Maybe circle around back to GWT with one of the heavier ones (Argentina/New Zealand).
Hey you need time stamps this is a long video I may be more interested in hearing you talk about one game than another I shouldn't have to search around to find the next topic. Also Root sucks I agree. I just feel like it's more complicated munchkin. Oh no guys he's going to win we need to pile on him and punish, oh no now this guy is winning we need to pile on him. Ooop I just scored 7 points I win game's over.
Brass fell flat? Do you even like strategy bro?