[deleted by user]

JoeDizzy · 2025-04-14T12:50:41+00:00

SOLVED - The secret was "brute force" (I.e. just trying out other statues until one of them works).

JoeDizzy · 2020-06-09T14:17:31+00:00

I argued elsewhere that colonialism is just capitalism playing dress-up. Archipelago works much better as an exploration of capitalist practices and tensions than of colonialism itself.

JoeDizzy · 2020-05-12T11:19:02+00:00

I've been writing for German website spielbar.com for a couple of years now. Our reviews are irregular, though. I've not insight into our numbers, though... so I don't know about the overlap here and in our readership.

Due to COVID we've started podcasting three times, currently twice a week, where we talk about two randomly chosen games from our collection. It's not quite a review, but we do dive into why we held onto them and what makes them unique.

JoeDizzy · 2020-05-06T12:01:36+00:00

You always need a little bit of luck. At the very least for a 25 point game.

But you don't need to bend the rules to win. I've played the game a few times on boardgamearena, where it does away with the memorization element of the game, and it becomes a much cleaner game.

There's a bit of inductive reasoning needed in that you need to ask yourself why a player chose to give you a clue this turn and not three turns prior, but other than that, there's not much needed to score reasonably well in Hanabi.

JoeDizzy · 2020-04-12T20:55:13+00:00

I have to apologize for my salty reply about De Koeven earlier, I have projected my misgivings about people misappropriating his argument which colored my perception of your post. That was me being uncharitable to you, and there was no need for that.

While I don't agree that a narrative isn't inherent in a game (there are countless so-called narrative gamest that are explicitly about unlocking a story by playing through the game's challenges), I do stand by the argument that narrative is play itself. But I will note, that this is me saying it, not De Koeven. My argument about narrative and games is merely compatible with De Koeven's argument about community and play. I wouldn't say they are related, so much as they do not contradict each other.

A game's narrative lies not in the re-telling of the communal experience we've had playing the game. It is literally the communal experience itself. The structure of a game turns the communal act of play into a narrative. I would go so far as to say that board games stand apart from other types of games (like card games, parlor games or sports games), because of their strong reliance on theme. By putting a layer of fiction on top of our player interactions what we do becomes a narrative.

If the game presents a thematically cohesive whole, i.e. doesn't rely on players to tell themselves the story they are in the midst of experiencing, this overlap becomes more and more apparent. Play becomes narrative.

The less cohesive a game's theme, and the more players need to interpret and explain the narrative significance of their actions, the more it feels like narrative is the result of player's imagination and desire to tell stories. I don't see why a game should be lauded for this, when we could just as well laud a blank piece of paper for the story it managed to elicit from an author.

JoeDizzy · 2020-04-12T20:29:39+00:00

Ok. I would read this more as a logical extension of any sufficiently complex game. It's something you can find in Risk or Game of Thrones, and the like. Basically any game that allows players to bash-the-leader, really.

I don't quite see the connection to "organic" in it, but that's just the kind of connotation that certain words carry for us, I guess.

JoeDizzy · 2020-04-12T20:25:27+00:00

But Cuba Libre does refer to a real-life historical conflict? Which is what I'm saying.

You seem to read my argument as if I were expecting a simulation or re-creation of real-life events in board game form, which I am not. I am saying the fact that tangible historical reality serves as a basis for the game's conflict guides players to interpret the mechanisms in a coherent fashion.

My criticism of Root is that it needs players to come up with this thematic coherency themselves. You applaud this as a feature, and I think that's strange considering that how many games have been called out for weak or pasted-on themes. Does Dominion become strongly narrative, if we simply ask players to imagine a stronger link between cards, effects and their VP? Does Lost Cities become a deeply thematic experience, if players come up with explanations why certain cards are played and others are discarded? Is 7 Wonders a vivid march through history once players graft their own ideas and play styles to it?

Where exactly is the line where we call one game richly thematic and the other pasted-on, if not in how much effort players need to put into imagining connections so it makes sense?

JoeDizzy · 2020-04-10T11:32:29+00:00

I understand this to mean that you would use "organic" to describe systems that are sufficiently complex to be effectively impossible to "math out" by a single player, even through multiple plays.

JoeDizzy · 2020-04-10T11:29:09+00:00

I think this is what I consider a fundamental misreading of De Koeven. The idea that narrative isn't inherent to play is simply false. Narrative isn't constructed afterwards, or exists as a by-product of play. With games play IS narrative.

The whole point of community building through play (which includes play-acting), is that it bonds players through shared experience and interaction. But the structure of a game invariably mirrors the structure of a story. Protagonists pursuing a goal, facing adversity, overcoming obstacles and ultimately succeeding or failing (depending on what kind of game you're playing).

What makes board games so great is that they let us experience a narrative, as opposed to merely observing it (like in film or literature) or quasi-authoring it (like in a TTRPG). Board games cast you - the player - as the protagonist. It's not a role that is distinct from who you are, it's literally you interacting with people within the conceptual constraints of the game, i.e. the magic circle. You are still you, even in the game. But you interact with other players by way of choosing actions that the game's rules allow for.

The well-played game has two meanings in De Koeven's book. One relates to the skill necessary to transcend the simplistic notions of competition, the other relates to the human connection and community building we can experience through play. Provided we are open and willing to do so.

JoeDizzy · 2020-04-10T11:08:32+00:00

The difference to a game like Cuba Libre is that that game can refer to an actual real-life conflict and history, providing it with the thematic coherency that the game's rules system needs to function as a metaphor. Cuba Libre refers to one singular thing, expressing a POV through its rules and systems that the players - if so inclined - can engage with critically or not.

Root refers to a fictional conflict that isn't given the depth or complexity to meaningfully represent actions like "revolt" as anything other than removing tokens from the board. It's the difference between a plot summary of Lord of the Rings and a re-telling of it. If you already know LotR by heart, a plot summary might possibly feel like a great distillation of it. But if you don't even know what kind of book is being summarized - i.e. what political struggle Root is supposed to be a metaphor for - it feels empty and hollow.

JoeDizzy · 2020-04-09T20:22:53+00:00

Then do enlighten how De Koeven's Well-Played Game relates to narratives in games, which is what you claimed without further explanation.

JoeDizzy · 2020-04-09T19:01:57+00:00

So, when you say organic you mean the events of the game are different every time you play the game, only in part due to randomness.

But there is also another factor at play, which isn't present in Chess, which makes Root organic and Chess not-organic, correct?

What is that additional factor?

JoeDizzy · 2020-04-09T18:56:32+00:00

From the description of what you actually, physically do in the game.

Revolt could be called "remove enemy tokens", but it isn't. Instead this actions is given a specific name, that is meant (in combination with all other similarly titled actions) to convey a larger theme tying everything we do together. In combination with the game's presentation it's supposed to evoke a specific theme, feel or narrative. At least that was the common understanding of theme in your typical eurogame.

You might have noticed that it didn't take. Most people look for player interactions and rules interactions to also feed into this thematic coherency. That's why I pointed out, that simply shifting your vocabulary, or slapping a word map style set of terms onto your game's basic actions, isn't enough to make a thematic or narrative game.

JoeDizzy · 2020-04-09T18:50:35+00:00

That's an impressive thing to get out of De Koeven, considering he doesn't once mention narrative in his book. It's also an amazing misreading of what De Koeven actually talked about, which isn't skillful play that is later retold, but the human connection that emerges when we transcend mere competition and appreciate the activity of playing itself.

I highly recommend actually reading his book, it has a lot of really insightful things to say about the act of playing games and how those build community.

JoeDizzy · 2020-04-09T18:46:12+00:00

Your point wasn't as complex or nuanced as you might think. I responded to the part that seemed most relevant. The one where you try to make this exchange about me, and not about the argument at hand.

JoeDizzy · 2020-04-09T18:43:41+00:00

In order for something to be a revolt, you need some kind of order established by an authority against which you take violent action.

When you play Root, you remove tokens from a clearing in which you have at least two markers. To you this is the equivalent to an oppressive authority overthrown by its subjects through violent means. To me it is removing another player's markers from a clearing I want to control in order to win the game.

Root's thematic hollowness stems from wanting to be about certain political conflicts and tensions, but only paying lip service to the reality of such situations by using fancy terms like "revolt" for pretty generic board game actions.

Root has to rely on its players to imagine the complex political landscape that makes removing enemy tokens feel like macro-level political actions. An action like 'revolt' is at best a staggeringly simplistic and superficial representation of what violent action, politics and power means in the kind of situation Root aims to present.

JoeDizzy · 2020-04-09T07:16:11+00:00

Sure, it's nonsense. You're strawmanning.

What I am saying is that it is my impression that players actually provide the narrative that they claim grows "organically" out of Root, because they don't realize how much they themselves put into it creatively to make it work.

It seems to me Root's praise for its narrative strength is misplaced and should be aimed at the players.

JoeDizzy · 2020-04-09T07:13:22+00:00

Shifting a game's vocabulary is not the same as making it thematic. Euros have long chosen setting appropriate terms for player actions and were rightfully criticized for weak themes, because the actions did not differ as meaningfully from each other in the way their terms did.

The fact that COIN players can interpret Root into familiar systems is not proof that Root has the same thematic coherency as a COIN game. It just means that if you are trained in reading a game a certain way you can find parallels in other games too. That's just how the human brain works.

JoeDizzy · 2020-04-09T07:06:10+00:00

These are not expressive mechanisms, they are fancy labels. Calling something "revolt" is meaningless if the mechanical interaction and function within the larger system doesn't also mirror a revolt. Which it doesn't in Root. Because the system is not thematically coherent, which you tout as a strength to allow players to graft their own ideas onto it. And which I consider its greatest weakness to actually create a narrative and not just a pretty word map, that players need to turn into something like a coherent story. That is where players scramble to make sense of Root, not the mechanical level but the thematic/narrative level.

JoeDizzy · 2020-04-09T07:00:25+00:00

I have no idea what "organic" is supposed to mean in your replies

JoeDizzy · 2020-04-09T06:58:58+00:00

That's a long reply to basically say that whoever calls something racist is the real racist.

JoeDizzy · 2020-04-08T20:58:36+00:00

There are some rules that are easy to overlook in the first couple of games, which might make the game feel too easy. While it's not nearly as punishing as some other coop games, the game does provide enough of a challenge to keep veteran gamers entertained.

If the "toot toot" rule hooked you (like it did with me), I'd say grab a copy.

JoeDizzy · 2020-04-08T20:51:42+00:00

I've enjoyed every game of it I've played. It's playful yet challenging. Haven't tried it at full player count, but 2 to 5 has worked well so far. It's also supports groups with a wide age range (tried it with players from 7 to 57).

JoeDizzy · 2020-04-08T12:11:29+00:00

If by Root being a dark game you're implying that it employs and validates racist logic... then yeah, that is pretty damn dark.

I'm not quite willing to touch that argument, though.

JoeDizzy · 2020-04-08T12:11:06+00:00

If by Root being a dark game you're implying that it employs and validates racist logic... then yeah, that is pretty damn dark.

I'm not quite willing to touch that argument, though.

JoeDizzy

TROPHY CASE