El Grande - chat transcript - February 5 2004

We had a well attended and interesting chat. Most of the discussion was about memory aspects in games, how to deal with hidden but trackable information and what kind of skills and outside resources players should be allowed to use when playing a game. We talked a bit about "El Grande" too.

Greetings and attempts at humour are edited out (sorry Scurra!).

---

Majorities

zaiga> Tonight's topic is El Grande. Anyone here who is not familiar with the game?
jwarrend> I think that's a "no".
zaiga> I guess so
FastLearner> hpox said he's not familiar with it.
FastLearner> It's one of my faves
zaiga> Anyway, El Grande is a typical area-majority game and often hailed as the best of its kind.
zaiga> Scoring points for majorities is a mechanic often used in games, but why is this such a great mechanic?
jwarrend> Didn't El Grande somewhat pioneer this mechanic?
hpox> Because sometimes a small difference make a difference and some other time a big difference do not make a difference?
zaiga> Hmm, Acquire is an older game where you score points based on majorities
hpox> It's unbalanced in that way, which might brings depth to game, somehow... !
zaiga> hpox: you mean the same number of resources may not always bring the same amount of points?
hpox> Exactly
jwarrend> But I wouldn't say Acquire is an "Area majority" game. It's a semantic point, I guess...
zaiga> No, not an *area* majority
zaiga> But you still score points (or gain a privilige or extra resources) based on a majority rather than a fixed number of points
zaiga> I think a game based on majorities also creates interaction and competition

Strategy/tactics/chaos

jwarrend> I would say El Grande seems to "work" because of the subtlety in the way guys are placed to the board, and...
jwarrend> the need to balance putting guys in your court to have them to deploy to the board.
jwarrend> What surprises me about El Grande being so popular (I know I'm jumping ahead, but I'm only here for ~4 minutes) is that it's very chaotic, or at least it seems that way to me. Am I far wrong?
Joe_Huber> How so chaotic?
zaiga> Perhaps tactical is a better word
jwarrend> I'm speaking mostly about the action cards; there are a lot of them and they do a lot of different things.
zaiga> Although managing your bidcards and your court adds a strategic layer
jwarrend> I don't think I would say tactical. At least, not to describe the effect I'm trying to describe.
Joe_Huber> Hmmm... I'd think of the action cards as more adding variety than chaos - though some of the individual cards are chaotic...
zaiga> Well, because of the nature of the action cards it's hard to plan ahead more than one turn
jwarrend> Yes, I believe the game has a strong strategic element. I just am concerned that it's swamped by the random nature of the action cards, much moreso than the "randomizing" effect in PR, etc.
jwarrend> In case I haven't said so, I haven't played the game much, so I'm still trying to get a feel for it...
zaiga> But this is migitated somewhat because you can "bid" on the action cards (or rather the order in which you may choose them)
jwarrend> Variety, to me, is more like what you see in Carcassonne -- different tiles will come up, but the principles will be the same. But in El Grande, the variety of what the action cards can do is all over the map; some will trigger scoring out-of-scoring-
Joe_Huber> I think the 4 stack card allowing the king to move may be the _most_ chaotic in some sense, since otherwise you can count on the king only moving once.
jwarrend> round, some will let you move your guys, some will let other people move your guys. I don't see how you could play strategically till you've memorized the cards, and it seems that there are too many to do that quickly
zaiga> That's exactly why I think El Grande is not really a strategic game, but more a tactical game where you have to revise your plan each turn
Tube_Maxwell> Really? Not even broad strategy?
FastLearner> I think there are broad strategies you can apply.
zaiga> Well, there is some strategy in managing your court and your bidding cards
Tube_Maxwell> (I've never played, I'm just here to learn about another 'classic' game)
Joe_Huber> Of course, the cards within a stack tend to be fairly limited - the 1 stack is movement (others), the 2 is movement (own), 3 is scoring, 4 doesn't have a theme...
Tube_Maxwell> I must say, it sounds like something I could get into!
zaiga> And I think there are some other strategic elements, but mostly you are reacting to what action cards come up
jwarrend> (Joe) Oh, is that true? I never knew that. That helps a lot.
Joe_Huber> zaiga: I agree, there are more tactics to the game than strategy.
zaiga> But that doesn't make it a bad game, of course!
Joe_Huber> The primary strategic element may be not being in the lead...
jwarrend> I guess it's just that when I've played the game, it reminds me of a quote from an excellent game design essay by Greg Costikyan:
jwarrend> If I might draw the Queen of Hearts and might draw Death and might draw the Battleship Potemkin, I have absoutely no basis on which to make a decision.
Tube_Maxwell> I have trouble hiding in second place, usually.
zaiga> Jeff: well, you know what cards are drawn this turn and you can make a decision based on that
FastLearner> There are some strategic decisions, I think. Like deciding whether to go for majorities in the big provinces, or going for a lot of second- and third-places, or using the tower a bunch or not. Things that you kind-of have to keep in mind as an overall
FastLearner> strategy.
jwarrend> I guess that's true, but since the scoring happens every 3 turns, and not with every action, there *has* to be room for strategic play. The game *cannot* be totally tactical, because your great move could get undone by a card you didn't know about...
FastLearner> Yes, the scoring-every-three thing does indicate some strategic play, certainly of your cards.
zaiga> Jeff: like I said the bidding migitates that somewhat, if a terrible card for you comes up you can bid high and pick it yourself. And you should try place your cubes in such a way that you cannot be too easily screwed by one card. Although I admit you....
zaiga> need to have an idea what kind of cards there are

Memory aspects and hidden, trackable information

Joe_Huber> While I have a second - is the Castillo (tower) hiding information that's not only trackable but _countable_ the worst case of needlessly obscuring information out there?
zaiga> Joe: it's definitely a memory-aspect
FastLearner> Well... I suck at keeping track of it, Joe, so for me it's very effective.
jwarrend> Joe, I think "countable by whom" is the question. I don't typically try to count shares in Acquire, stores in Paris Paris, or cubes in El Grande. I think playing by impression is fine for me, and I bet it works for a lot of gamers as well...
Joe_Huber> But... but... you can count cubes at _any_ point in time, and determine how many are in the Castillo...
jwarrend> It's more a question of, "can you win if someone else is counting?" I'm not sure.
zaiga> Joe: good point
FastLearner> Hmm. Yeah, I guess that's a good point, if I knew how many cubes there were for each player. Not too tough. Well, it's still a cool piece of MDF.
Tube_Maxwell> Hmmm... I do play with a 'counter' in my group.
Joe_Huber> I mean, a memory element is bad enough - but this is information that anyone can determine at any time...
zaiga> Most of the people in our group do keep track of how much cubes there are in the tower
jwarrend> Oh, I see your point. Yeah, you can do that with Paris Paris too. I don't think these games are meant to be played that way (just my opinion). I don't think you're supposed to be free to stop the game and count everyone's pieces. Obviously you *can*..
Joe_Huber> FWIW, we just don't use the tower.
zaiga> I don't agree that a memroy aspect is necessarily bad, but if anyone can count it then it indeed becomes a bit silly
FastLearner> Yeah, I can see that.
jwarrend> ...but I think that crosses a threshold of "seriousness" that I don't ever reach (except when playing chess, I suppose)...
zaiga> As a player I agree, but as a designer I do worry about such things
zaiga> Should I keep things like that in mind when I design games, or should I not worry about it?
Tube_Maxwell> In my group, we agree it is the most 'fun' when nobody does things like this. We all like to win, but it's more about the fun, and if one must refrain from counting, we will.
zaiga> Any opinions on that? Should you worry about very serious players who can possibly break your game if they don't play it as was "intended"?
Joe_Huber> The problem is that a number of people _naturally_ count, and can't just "not count".
FastLearner> I think they're very much worth keeping in mind.
zaiga> But that means, that if you were Wolfgang Kramer, you would have rejected this game?
Joe_Huber> My rule is simple - if the game _can't_ be played with the information open, it's broken for me.
FastLearner> I know in my game designs I've worked hard to make certain that card counters don't have much of an advantage... mostly because I'm lousy at it and a couple of my playtester buddies are quite good at it.
zaiga> And it may possibly never have seen the light of day?
zaiga> Joe: so you think Taj Mahal is broken?
FastLearner> I think a simple change would allow the game to work, right?
FastLearner> So no need to discount the entire game if a small change does the trick.
Tube_Maxwell> I don't worry about it. If 'counters' would wreck your game's fun, put a note in the rules that says so, and if they choose to do things that ruin the fun, why are they playing? (Isn't 'fun' somewhere in the definition of the word 'play'?)
Joe_Huber> zaiga: No - El Grande works _fine_ with the information public, so I'd just have thrown out the tower...
zaiga> Joe: but Taj Mahal?
Joe_Huber> Taj Mahal - no, as not all information is trackable. _Hidden_ information is just fine - but not trackable hidden information.
Joe_Huber> That said, I can't stand Taj Mahal - but for the games of chicken it provokes rather than for trackable data issues.
zaiga> Joe: allright, I see your point.
zaiga> Maxwell: I don't think you can say in the rules that players may not do things that would ruin the fun
Joe_Huber> Among my favorite games with memory elements are those where a perfect memory doesn't make for perfect decisions, such as Mamma Mia...
zaiga> Mamma MIa is a fine game indeed
Joe_Huber> Maxwell: Nick Sauer has a photographic memory; he "counts" information naturally. I don't think you can put something in the rules requiring Nick to receive a concussion before playing...
zaiga> Still, many great games make use of trackable hidden information
zaiga> Settlers, Puerto Rico, El Grande, E&T, just to name a few
Joe_Huber> Yup - but they all play fine with the information open. (And, in fact, I prefer to play all save Settlers with open information. Settlers isn't 100% trackable due to the robber...)
Tube_Maxwell> Joe: lol! I guess so. Is he a friend of yours? I would like to ask someone like him if he finds that affects his enjoyment of games (like El Grande)
hpox> In Dune, there's a lot of trackable hidden information and you could write them all down since you are provided with a small player sheet and a pencil... I don't think it'd be fair though...
zaiga> You are allowed to take notes during a game of Magic
Joe_Huber> Unforunately I don't talk with Nick as much as I used to - he's friends with Kevin Maroney, though.
Tube_Maxwell> It reminds me of playing a round, then going to your computer to do some statistical crunching before you make your move (I wouldn't wanna play with this guy)
hpox> For example, at the beginning everyone draws 4 leader tokens from a pool containing all the leaders. You choose one to be your traitor. That means, the 3 other are "safe" meaning no one could have them for traitors. You can mark that too but it's not in the rules
Joe_Huber> It's much easier to play with open information with fast players. If information increases analysis paralysis, it's not such a good thing.
hpox> Don't know where I'm going with that though...
Tube_Maxwell> I've played Scotland Yard with a guy who marked all possible permutations of where MR X could have gone with paper tabs. I never played wiht him again.

Leader bashing

zaiga> OK, let's move the discussion back to El Grande. One of the features of the game is that it is very easy to pick on a player.
Joe_Huber> zaiga: yes, the ability to hit the leader so precisely is the biggest reason I don't enjoy & play the game more often.
zaiga> Why is it a bad thing then?
Tube_Maxwell> Yes, bash the leader to me seems the hardest obstacle to overcome in game design.
Tube_Maxwell> I'm okay if you can all 'nudge' the leader but outright bashing seems unbalanced
zaiga> You *need* some kind of interaction in any game
Joe_Huber> It encourages everyone to hang back. I'd rather have a game where an early lead _increases_ the chance you win...
zaiga> I often feel in El Grande the first two scoring rounds are a bit pointless, you need to make sure you are not too far behind.
Joe_Huber> Having _some_ mechanism to bottle up the leader is fine, but it's a key balance in many games - and I don't think El Grande got it right.
hpox> Bash the leader in itself is not bad, but it often (always?) lead to the bigger Kingmaker problem where at some points, one player will have the power to choose who will win.
zaiga> But after that it often seems to come down to what powercards come up in the last 3 rounds and often even to the last secret allocation of your Castillo guys
zaiga> hpox: I don't think El Grande really has too much of a Kingmaker syndrome, because the allocation of Castillo guys is secret...
Joe_Huber> ...yeah, right...
Tube_Maxwell> It's so hard to predict. Sometimes, the right kind of tension where one is being bashed (and knows it) can still barely pull off the win. It can be exciting.
Joe_Huber> D'oh - I was thinking of the number rather than the territory... nevermind...
hpox> zaiga: Ok. I don't even know the rules. But indeed, a way to mitigate the kingmaker problem is with a random/closed/secret "thing". But again, the player chose to cripple a player over another, which might have made the difference.
FastLearner> Aye, knowing the number of guys in the Castillo only tells you so much.
zaiga> You never know exaclty where they go. I think this is a great way to reduce both AP in the end and prevents overt Kingmaker situations
Joe_Huber> Of course, the territory they go to is really just bluffing, a fine game element but one a bit out of place for me in El Grande.
hpox> That's cool. I'll have to investigate on this game.
Tube_Maxwell> When bashing the leader is the worst, in my opinion, is when the leader gets pulled down, and it starts all over again with a new leader. It never ends. Is this true in EG?
zaiga> Well, the game simply end after 9 rounds
zaiga> So it's not like the game drags on forever
Tube_Maxwell> Then, I don't mind that. You must plan not to be too far ahead by then.
zaiga> In El Grande that is a good part of the strategy
zaiga> And apparently a lot of people don't mind, because El Grande has a very high rating
Joe_Huber> I've found that all too often El Grande does come down to "who is on top when the wheel stops spinning". It is possible to lose big, but besides that it always seems to be close.
zaiga> I would even venture to say that being able to pick on a certain player is why people actually *like* the game
Joe_Huber> zaiga: Yeah, but the same people rate Modern Art and Taj Mahal high also...
zaiga> Those are the masses that will buy our games, Joe
Joe_Huber> Ah - see, I'm aiming for the people who rate Fresh Fish and Minister highly...
zaiga> Never played those
Tube_Maxwell> But really, we're just nitpicking right? It's the topic for discussion because it's great. Maybe not perfect, but lotsa fun, right?
zaiga> I like the game a lot and many people do like it a lot
Tube_Maxwell> (sorry to get all mediator-ly there)
zaiga> But it may also be useful to recognize the parts that don't work for some people
Joe_Huber> FWIW, while I enjoy El Grande, it's probably not in my top 100 games. I've been trying to consider and explain why.
Tube_Maxwell> Whoah, there are 100 games better? I don't think I've played 100... have I?
hpox> Me neither...
Joe_Huber> Maxwell: Note, I didn't say there were 100 _better_ games - just 100 I enjoy more...
zaiga> OK, like FL said earlier, one of the nice aspects of the game is the double function of the bidcards
Tube_Maxwell> So, I guess a neutral way to put it would be, "does it have replay value" (Joe: I didn't mean to pick, I'm just jealous at how many games you have access to)
FastLearner> Our group has probably played it 20 times, so yeah, I'd say there's some good replay value.
Joe_Huber> Regarding replay value: for comparison, I've played it 9 times, which is pretty fair replay value for a game that's not one of my favorites...

The bidding cards

zaiga> I think this creates a nice dillema in the game. Should a player bid high to get that great actioncard, or should he play a lower card to replenish his court?
FastLearner> zaiga: I agree, yup. Definitely my fave.
Tube_Maxwell> zaiga: THIS is exactly the kind of situation that excites me about a game!
hpox> Because there's bidding also?
Joe_Huber> I like the idea of the bid cards - the problem is that it's a little _too_ easy to play a low card in some cases. The mechanism works well, but doesn't really shine for me.
zaiga> I like the idea of dual functions of cards (or tiles) a lot and I try to use it a lot in my designs
zaiga> hpox: players use numbered cards (1-13) to bid on the order in which they may pick action cards
Tube_Maxwell> not neccesarily the bidding, but that kind of 'move now' or 'invest now' aspect (knowing everybody else has those choices too)
zaiga> Maxwell: you might also want to try out Union Pacific then, where that dillema is even more prolific
hpox> With a use-once mechanic I guess?
zaiga> hpox: but if you use a low bidcard you may add cubes to your supply, while higher cards add less cubes to your supply
zaiga> hpox: yes, you may use them only once
hpox> zaiga, interesting!

Memory aspects revisited

Tube_Maxwell> Ah, now I see the counting issue... I guess it's like bridge, in that aspect (knowing if you hold the remaining highest card)
zaiga> Maxwell: yeah, but the real "memory" issue has to do with the Castillo. This is a device in which player can drop cubes, but players cannot see how much there are in there.
Joe_Huber> Maxwell: No, the counting issue is something different. Each player has 30 cubes; any that aren't in front of the player or on the board are necessarily in the castillo.
zaiga> After three rounds the cubes in the Castillo are revealed and then scored based on who has the majority of cubes in the Castillo
Tube_Maxwell> Interesting. (Joe: reminds me in a way of KerPlunk, which makes me think maybe I have played 100 games )
hpox> Joe: Are you saying you can count at all time how many blocks and which blocks is in the castillo?
zaiga> hpox: that is possible
Joe_Huber> hpox: Yes, just so.
Tube_Maxwell> how important is knowing who holds majority in there?
zaiga> Sometimes not so important, sometimes it decides a game
Joe_Huber> Maxwell: Reasonably important - it's certainly more important than any single territory on the board, since the castillo both scores and sends paratroopers to a territory...
hpox> Well I can always scroll up, I don't want to slow you down. Each player could have a screen to hide the cubes in front of them, would that solve the problem?
zaiga> Paratroopers, lol. I just call them "cubes"
Tube_Maxwell> cube-a-troopas
zaiga> hpox: that is a possible solution
Joe_Huber> hpox: In short - no, it just creates a different problem.
Scurra> Well then you get into Euphrates & Tigris territory
Scurra> "Are cubes open or hidden?"
Joe_Huber> OPEN!
zaiga> Scurra, we'll just discuss this topic every week
Scurra> CLOSED HOLDINGS!
zaiga> It makes for nice, long chats
hpox> Okay...
Scurra> (oh sorry, my Acquire reflex kicked in there)

Player skills and outside resources

Tube_Maxwell> Okay, so it's a problem, but we haven't answered if two 'counters' will beat two 'non counters' for the most part.
Tube_Maxwell> which would be a real problem, then
Joe_Huber> Maxwell: counters have some advantage - not as great as in, say Acquire...
zaiga> Hmm, it's not that much of a problem
zaiga> In El Grande
Tube_Maxwell> If a 'non counter' can beat a 'counter' 50%, I say "Play on!"
hpox> This argument is good. Players who put more effort and thought should be winning more often.
zaiga> hpox: so it is OK if a counter wins more because he has a certain skill that others don't have?
hpox> I'm not a counter, but I say yes. The problem is usually that counters also have tactic and strategic skills.
Oracle> shouldn't having a skill that can help you be an advantage?
hpox> You can learn and train to count too.
Tube_Maxwell> I think you have to take in the spirit of the game.
zaiga> Oracl: it depends. The game should still be fun and possible "winnable" for other players
Tube_Maxwell> Earlier I mentioned a guy who marked where Mr X could possibly be in Scotland Yard. Not the right spirit.
Joe_Huber> zaiga: what about Bridge?
zaiga> Joe: don't know Bridge
Tube_Maxwell> Isn't counting the spirit of the game in this case?
Tube_Maxwell> (for bridge?)
Oracle> it is still possible, counting just gives an advantage. It's also not the only skill. Someone who's good at arithmetic will have an advatage at Formula DE because they can calculate the probabilities and know when to take a risk
Oracle> for Chess, good visualization skills help a lot because you can envision what the board would be like after a line of play several moves long
Tube_Maxwell> Oracle: Which comes from practice. If one player could not do this, it probably wouldn't be fun for either.
zaiga> Oracle: so different skills are useful in different games
Oracle> zaiga: right, which probably also explains why people like different types of games
Oracle> Tube: it's never fun if the players are too unmatched
Tube_Maxwell> But, I would add that playing a specific game a lot, lets you have the 'instinct' for this particular game of when to take those risks (not present in a newbie)
Oracle> but if you're saying the game shouldn't award unique skills, we'd all be playing snakes and ladders
Tube_Maxwell> I don't think I am. I'm saying that unique approaches (skills) are fine, as long as they don't go against the spirit of said game (look at my Scotland Yard example)
Scurra> Absolutely
Oracle> I'm not familiar with Scotland Yard. Did the player put a mark on the board?
Scurra> I don't really mind counters in a game where you can count as long as it doesn't drag the game out
zaiga> Agreed
Scurra> In Scotland Yard you can do something like put counters on spaces
zaiga> Actually, I'm not even sure if that really goes against the spirit of Scotland Yard
Tube_Maxwell> It takes any
Scurra> Well, perhaps not - but part of the fun is that players can *miss* routes
Tube_Maxwell> "charm" out of the game
Scurra> whereas labelling things methodically is just dull
zaiga> Because, to me, it seems that that game is much more about coordinating the movement of the detectives than remembering where Mr. X was exactly
zaiga> I agree that it's a bit lame
Scurra> Oh, certainly - the "game" is about resource management, not necessarily route planning
zaiga> Otherwise the game would have come with extra markers
Tube_Maxwell> The spirit of that game is the team against the crook. If the team is reduced to marking the board, it's no fun, and there's no more mystique for Mr X beating the odds and excaping.
zaiga> Well, you never know for sure where Mr X went with each move
Tube_Maxwell> This is why you mark all possible permutations until he has a giveaway space.
Scurra> (Well, I don't mind - I love Scotland Yard and can't abide El Grande )
zaiga> Yeah, but don't players do that anyway?
Tube_Maxwell> This is the best example I can think of, of counting (of a sort) ruining a game.
zaiga> I mean the detectives will discuss the possible locations of Mr X right?
Scurra> Yeah, but part of the "learning curve" of the game is realising how to do it effectively
Oracle> on a related note, should players be allowed to use apencil and paper to take notes? I know someone who, for example, likes to track VPs in PR.
Scurra> Oracle, that one is *definitely* going to come up when we talk about E&T
zaiga> Oracle: that's silly. It's like writing down where which tiles are in a game of Concentration (memory)
Tube_Maxwell> I think this is wrong. I'd bet he's very vocal about who's winning if he's not, right?
Tube_Maxwell> Yes! Better than the Yard example!
Oracle> Tube: He's always vocal about who he thinks is winning
hpox> Oracle, in PR that's against the rules. If they were to be known, the vp would not be face down.
Scurra> (Actually, when I play PR with people for the first time we always play with VPs face-up. But that's because it helps the learning process)
zaiga> The game has a memory aspect, like it or not.
Oracle> hpox: the rules say you keep them face down, but since everyone is aware of the VPs people get, they can count in their heads, so why not on paper?
zaiga> Oracle: because you have to count them in your head, not on paper
Tube_Maxwell> If the guy with the paper is winning more games because of it, I disagree. If all are still having fun despite of it, sure go ahead.
Scurra> Oracle, does he routinely announce the players' standings from his list too?
Joe_Huber> Oracle: why bother with paper? Why not play face-up?
Oracle> Scurra: not routinely
hpox> It comes down to "skill" or in that case memory. Can I bring my computer to calculate every moves and probability of a game?
zaiga> May I use my chess computer to help me in a game of chess?
Tube_Maxwell> If your strategy depends on memorizing what happened before, you must ask yourself is that what this game is about?
Scurra> Rene, yes - under certain circumstances...
Joe_Huber> hpox: Having a reasonably good memory, I strongly prefer memory be removed as an element from games (such as PR) that don't need it.
Oracle> zaiga: that's an interesting point too. If you're a skilled enough player, a chess computer can help you play without playing for you...a human+computer is a stronger chess player than either alone
zaiga> Now we are again back at the memory aspect of games....
Tube_Maxwell> I feel we're going in circles. If one player is doing something to gain an advantage over other players (that's outside of the rules) Is that okay? I guess it depends on the group. In mine, it's not really.
hpox> Joe: I guess that's a personal choice, in PR it was done to reduce Analysis Paralysis. If, on the last turn, everyone had all informations open that could bring the game down to a crawl.
Joe_Huber> hpox: Yes, it could, with the wrong group of players...
zaiga> Maxwell: agreed, let the players decide what they like best. I think I don't mind to put memory elements in my games. It works fine most of the time.
Tube_Maxwell> hpox: it's true. Memory is okay since by the end,nobody is expected to remember that much unless you concentrate on only one opponent's stuff, which seems like bullying.
zaiga> Players can choose to play with open information if they want to
Oracle> Tube: there's 2 questions in there. They can do something using a natural talent (like memorize people's PR scores) or a foreign aid (like taking note of the scores on paper). Are both advantages equivalent?
Scurra> Frankly, I find there's enough to concentrate on in a properly designed game than keeping more than a rough track of how my opponents are doing (if the game has hidden information)
Tube_Maxwell> Oracle: I think it comes down to the person. foreign aids seem overtly unfair, but if they can do it all in their head, (and I've tried it before) does it 'feel' like cheating. (it did for me. I felt I had an unfair advantage.)
hpox> Yep, and if you concentrate on the memory, you might lose some more important parts. In that way the natural ability is limited and require something from the player while an artificial skill (paper, computer) does not.
Oracle> Tube: but if you're playing with people who can do it in their head, the paper approach can be neutralizing the advantage.
Oracle> when I was younger, I could remember a set of 10-20 numbers, concentrate on doing other things and recall the numbers when I needed them. I seem to have lost the talent with age, but that's as good as writing them down.
Tube_Maxwell> Is this 'mental advantage' something they can choose to not do? IE. counting VP? I feel I'm overusing the phrase, but could they play in the spirit the game was intended?
Tube_Maxwell> And have fun?
zaiga> I could choose not to concentrate on counting how many cubes are thrown into the tower in El Grande
hpox> It depends on their goal. If they want to win or have fun.
Oracle> Tube: it depends how well trained they've become at that. I convert between lbs and kg's without even being aware of it.
zaiga> But for some people countign stuff is a natural talent and they can't switch it off
Tube_Maxwell> I'm reminded of tournament play (hypothetically). This is where it's not so much about fun but about those 'tricks' that'll win you more games. I don't want my game group to feel like a tourney.

- End of chat -