Puerto Rico - Chat transcript - Jan 21 2004

zaiga> The first topic I want to discuss is that of the role
selection mechanism and the rotating governor. Why does this work so well in
this game (or not)?
DavemanUK> lol yup, magic is still hanging around in our minds
Scurra> I think the Governor rotation is slightly odd - it seems
to work better in larger games
maxwell> I think it IS the game. It's great to get caught up in
the ebb of trying to predict the outcome.
zaiga> Yes, but it makes sure that every player gets his share of
"first picks", balancing the game a bit.
maxwell> (who picks what, I mean)
Scurra> when you accept that you won't get certain chances
Scurra> in a three-played game, for instance, it seems to be much
less significant
zaiga> I agree, that it is less significant, but still
significant enough I think
DavemanUK> and there's the seating order issue for being the
first first-picker
Scurra> seating order is highly critical
DavemanUK> sure, there's many theories on the opening round of
play
maxwell> I don't mind a very predictable opening, because the
game seems to open up rather quickly.
Scurra> PR is one of the few games outside of Chess and Go etc.
that I have seen articles discussing the "opening book"
zaiga> I think the rotating governor makes the game more fair and
the rotating governor makes for some interesting tactical decisions in order
to set yourself up for a good move when the governor comes to you
DavemanUK> which is good for debates about a game
zaiga> I want to talk about the "opening book" a bit later
Scurra> fairy nuff
zaiga>
DavemanUK> so you have to think those turns ahead when the
governor is nearing you
maxwell> I think this works so well because there's nothing
hidden, and you can make a good guess as to what your opponents do.
Scurra> But really it's only a start player marker, isn't it?
DavemanUK> kinda reminds me of the 'reward schedule' articles
Scurra> there's nothing odd about it
DavemanUK> players can see being the governer as a fixed-interval
reward?
Scurra> now chossing roles - that's different!
zaiga> Indeed, it is just a rotating startplayer
maxwell> It feels odd tho, when you're the Gov, and the guy on
the right picks, but you don't get to pick again for almost a full cycle.
Scurra> but what makes the role-selection special in PR is that
everyone gets to do the action - that's really interesting
zaiga> Yes, but you see it coming. The rotating governor makes
for some interesting tactical decisions in order to set yourself up for a
good move when the governor comes to you.
zaiga> I agree, th eëveryone gets to do something" mechanic is
brilliant
DavemanUK> the governor then makes the first-picks into a
variable reward schedule?
DavemanUK> even if the variance is fixed lol
zaiga> It reduces downtime because everyone gets to do something
during every role selection, so you are always involved
maxwell> I also love that you can pick roles that help you, but
also to nail other players
Scurra> Dave, not necessarily - sometimes you dread the Governor
because you know you're not going to be able to use it properly
zaiga> Maxwell: so there is interaction through th epicking or
not picking of roles?
hpox> I agree, that's the best part of it. The game is always
going on and you don't really have to wait.
Scurra> you know - those times when you know that you're going
have to take a Prospector...
DavemanUK> true, it's a damocles sword which gives tension as
well as rewards
DavemanUK> surely (if one is playing well) the approaching
govenor will be welcomed not dreaded
Scurra> it depends on how well the others are playing too
Scurra> The interaction in role-picking is nicely subtle I find
zaiga> It's easier to set yourself up for a good governor round
with less players
Scurra> one of the neatest devices of the game
zaiga> It makes for agonizing decisions. Typically, there are
only two to four roles that are good for you, but choosing the one that
benefits you the most and doesn't help other players too much can be tricky.
However, players new to the game may not be able to
zaiga> narrow down their choices quickly enough leading to AP?
Scurra> agree strongly
DavemanUK> role-picking interaction being quite at the
social-level of play too
maxwell> Yes, I've only played a half-dozen times so far (over 1
month) and I find when considerin captain to be the slowest (all those
permutations!)
Scurra> with an experienced group, you can bang through a game of
PR in something like 45 minutes (if not less)
zaiga> That's impressive
zaiga> Our group is quite experience, but we still take 90
minutes
maxwell> I love how deep it feels for how long it plays (it plays
quick, but doesn't seem quick) Our first game was only 2hr! Beat our
expectations
zaiga> But many in our group like to ponder and it is accepted
Scurra> yes - you mustn't rush people
Scurra> yes, maxwell, it's curious how it feels long without
playing long
Scurra> which is normally a bad thing
Scurra> but in PR you feel involved all the time
zaiga> I agree that there is a lot of "game" packed into 90
minutes.
zaiga> I think that is because everyone gets to do something more
or less simultaneously and all the individual actions are quick and punchy
maxwell> And the Governor seems to go around very few times,
considering. I've never thought about that much.
zaiga> I believe there are 15 turns in a game of PR, on average
Scurra> but I think that the role-selection is really the big AP
point, and once you've cracked that there generally aren't too many hold-ups
DavemanUK> the actual execution of the actions are quick, yup
zaiga> So, in a 5 player game you get to be governor 3 times
DavemanUK> certainly a good thing there's no laborious
housekeeping
maxwell> The rulebook states it takes about 15 rounds, but the
Gov doesn't go around that many, or that few (if you divide 15 by the
players) From what we've noticed.
zaiga> I've never actually counted it
Scurra> depends what your "groupthink" is
Scurra> I usually reckon on governor 3 times in a five player
game so that sounds about right to me
zaiga> If all players massively go for shipping corn, then the VP
stack can run out quickly
Scurra> but the actual length is going to be anywhere between
about 12 and 18 turns
zaiga> I like how the game ending can be triggered by 3 different
things
maxwell> Most of our (very few) games end in colonist shortages.
Nowhere near VP shortages. (Buildings once)
zaiga> I think ending games through colonists is typical for
"newbie"games
Scurra> my experience is that all three run pretty close to each
other
zaiga> In a well played game, they should...
DavemanUK> it does give all the players more sense of control of
being able to choose an action to end the game rather than having a fixed
number of rounds
Scurra> with a couple of games ending with all three conditions
at the same time
Scurra> yes - I think that's an important design consideration
Scurra> the game still lasts roughly the same length
Torrent> I've not actually played PR. Is there a set of choices
that would cause the game to go overlong?
zaiga> I think I like games that end when a certain resource runs
out more than a fixed number of rounds
maxwell> One of our games ended with a tie in VP points and a
one-point difference in "tie-breaker goods"
Torrent> Can people stall the end game, basiclaly?
Scurra> torrent, not very easily
zaiga> Torrent: possibly, but it is unlikely. At least one player
should be interested in ending the game as soon as possible
DavemanUK> would it have severely hurt the game if it had a fixed
limit of rounds (varying according to the number of players)?
maxwell> Not without likely messing up your strategy at the
moment (torrent)
Scurra> I don't think a fixed number of rounds would have made a
huge difference
DavemanUK> (even if the round limit was as likely to occur as any
of the other 3 endings)
Scurra> but as you said, it gives the players the illusion of
control
zaiga> Dave: I think it would make the endgame a bit less
interesting... I like the tension of not knowing exaclty when the game ends
Scurra> It would require another level of housekeeping too
maxwell> I agree, zaiga
Scurra> which is a bad thing from a design persepctive
zaiga> Also, the game would eb a bit dumb if there wre no VP's
anymore, but you still needed to play a number of rounds
zaiga> Or no city space, or no colonists
Scurra> I think Dave's suggesting that the game would end if any
of those were reached too
Scurra> not played out to the last few rounds
DavemanUK> yes, the round limit is secondary to the other 3
endings
zaiga> OK, so you would have 4 ways of ending the game?
Scurra> I think the house-keeping for a "number of rounds" game
is tricky if the game has more than 10 or so rounds
zaiga> Well, I don't think that will matter much. It could be a
good idea for games where the endga,me could possibly drag
DavemanUK> something like 30% chance of each of the 3
resource-endings, and a 10% chance of a round limit ending
Scurra> it's far too easy to miss "moving a marker" on
zaiga> I always forget it in El Grande
maxwell> But, this ties into the Gov rotation, since the end
doesn't actually happen until it changes hands, not great to make the
endgame move on your Gov round.
maxwell> (sorry guys, I type slow...)
zaiga> It would make stuff a bit more predictable. I don't think
it would be bad, but I don't think it would add a lot to the game either...
zaiga> Excpet a bit of bookkeeping
DavemanUK> true, im sure the designers thought about why they
_didnt_ need a round limit
Scurra> So we're happy that there isn't one, then?
maxwell> Yes
zaiga> I am
DavemanUK> yup im happy for PR not to have it
maxwell> There's already more than enough to make my brain hurt
zaiga> One thing that I find interesting, and it happens a lot in
our group is that the open selection of roles is the subject of a lot of
negotiation
maxwell> -such a deep game-
Joe_Huber> One of the things I do think is very well done from a
design perspective is the balance of end-game conditions.
hpox> Negotiation?
zaiga> Or rather, people give "friendly" advice to the player
about to pick a role
maxwell> lol - "friendly"
Scurra> Oh yes "the voice" as I like to call it
DavemanUK> lots of "if i pick this, will you take that?"
Scurra> I think it's more usually "*obviously* you take X"
maxwell> My fav is "You know X is gonna pick this, so you better
pick that!"
zaiga> No, not that really, more like "Don't pick the Builder,
because then John can buy a big building. I would pick Craftsman if I were
you".
Scurra> zaiga, yes - exactly
DavemanUK> yup joe, the end-balancing must've taken a long time
to get right, but well worth it
zaiga> It's a bit like in Carcassonne, where people give advice
where you can put your tile
Scurra> "You know you /should/ take X - so go on..."
maxwell> I wonder if anyone tried a variant where everyone picks
a role for the person on the left.
maxwell> This would make it more of a defensive game.
Scurra> only at least in Carc people are sometimes actually
helpful
zaiga> Ah
zaiga> But do you think this is a good feature of PR? Or just
something that can be annoying?
Scurra> I think it's the core of the game myself
Scurra> otherwise it would become slightly too "dry"
maxwell> Depends on the group. I don't mind mindgames
Scurra> part of the fun is "pointing out the obvious"
Joe_Huber> The fact that PR allows for groups to _decide_ if
advice is allowed is certainly a positive...
zaiga> My group loves mind games, part of the reason why PR is so
popular
DavemanUK> the advice phenomena is at the heart of every british
pub scene when discussing football team selections lol
zaiga> However, I can imagine some groups like to play PR
"silent"
DavemanUK> its human nature to want to exert one's influence on
another
Scurra> The 45-min games I have played are largely silent -
that's how we do it in time!
Scurra> but I feel that it loses something
Torrent> Could you do a 'speed PR' like 'speed chess'.. you have
a small limited time to pick something
Torrent> or would that destroy it somehow
Joe_Huber> Speed-PR can play in 30 minutes or less...
zaiga> I think that could be a whacky kind of fun sometimes
DavemanUK> mm, like an egg timer for each player? i think most
people dont like to be rushed
maxwell> It may make the game seem sterile, not making you want
to come back to it again, which would be a shame.
maxwell> Unless it's super short times!
zaiga> Joe: aren't you the guy who plays everything in 30 mins or
less with his group? During lunch?
maxwell> Then let the wacky chaos begin!
Joe_Huber> I think Amun Re is a far better game to play fast than
Puerto Rico, where the depth supports the length...
Scurra> Joe, I agree completely
zaiga> You mean PR is deeper than AR or the other way around?
Joe_Huber> zaiga: not _everything_. Haven't figured out how to
play 2038 that fast...
Scurra> (Zaiga, we're going to have to put AR on the list now!)
Joe_Huber> PR is deeper than AR.
maxwell> I've never played Amun Re, is it very similar to PR?
zaiga> Yeah, AR keeps coming back into discussion
Scurra> Not in the slightest Maxwell
zaiga> I think AR is different to PR in almost all aspects
zaiga> But I like both a lot
zaiga> I wouldn't say PR is deeper than AR...
maxwell> PR just seems to 'feel' different than other games.
maxwell> In my experience, anyway
zaiga> PR is a lot more "breezier"
DavemanUK> (Boggle is a speed-game, 3mins to make words, but I'd
hate to speed-play German games)
Joe_Huber> Amun Re is "only" an economic game, with a single
economic system. Puerto Rico has multiple interacting systems.
Scurra> But the single system in AR is quite deep, whereas I
think that PRs systems are much shallower by comparison
Joe_Huber> ...which is meant to imply nothing negative about AR,
btw.
maxwell> I want to be playing PR just from talking about it.
zaiga> I want to be playing PR period.
Scurra> well, sorry about that Rene
maxwell> I recently found out we were playing one rule wrong. I
have yet to try the correct version (this weekend, hopefully)
DavemanUK> sounds like the translation error on a building
Joe_Huber> Puerto Rico's economic systems don't strike me as
shallow - good development is a three-step process, and interacts with the
other methods for economic develop closely.
Scurra> Can we talk about the buildings now please?
zaiga> All right, next topic. Buildings.
maxwell> Sure, I have one question on the subject!
Scurra> Because I like the "different numbers" approach
Joe_Huber> One thing I _don't_ think is ideal in Puerto Rico is
the constant cost of buildings, when their usefullness varies based on the
number of players.
DavemanUK> joe, true, there's the economics of time/opportunity
as well as gold
Joe_Huber> Different numbers?
maxwell> I never thought of that...
Scurra> quantities
Scurra> I mean
zaiga> Explain...
maxwell> But doesn't the usefulness grade on some of 'em too?
(Construction hut?)
Scurra> Which again changes according to the number of players
maxwell> One doesn't need to fight for quarries in a three player
game.
maxwell> (As much)
DavemanUK> surely that's part of the fun of figuring out their
usefulness with respect to the number of players
zaiga> I don't think it is a flaw
DavemanUK> neither do i
Scurra> although it's good to try and persuade people that
certain buildings /are/ less useful
maxwell> You can't just do the same thing and expect it to work
in all cases. A great thing!
zaiga> Let people build their Con Hut in a 3-player game!
Scurra> so that then you can play a game in which you swoop on
one of them and surprise everyone...
zaiga> Is it a good thing or a bad thing that a game plays
differently with different number of players?
Scurra> I still think that some of the buildings costs must have
been changing almost up to release
DavemanUK> a game that plays (quite) different with respect to
the number of players is a plus for me
zaiga> Agreed, as long as it is fun with any number
darkehorse> Zaiga: I think it depends.. If it adds another layer
of strategy (i.e. you play differently depending upon # of players) then
yes.. If it just makes the game more difficult or less balanced, no.
Joe_Huber> Re: game playing differently with different number of
players is a feature. In PR, it's neither a good feature or a bug IMHO.
DavemanUK> yup scurra, i think that price tuning would have been
the last and maybe the most time consuming part of the designing
zaiga> Scurra: actually I believe if you look at the back of the
cover you see a prototype of the game which has a building with a different
cost
maxwell> There's nothing wrong with a game you're familiar with
and love having a new feeling come along once in a while
zaiga> I'll take a look
Scurra> Joe, I think I concur - in PRs case the games are so
different between themselves that the fact they are different with different
numbers of players is almost incidental (IYSWIM)
Joe_Huber> Did anyone invite Stefan to participate in this
discussion?
maxwell> (by changing player #)
Scurra> Joe, you're the professional. We don't know anyone
important
DavemanUK> true max, there's lots of combinations of player # and
# of players
DavemanUK> i.e. player #2 in a 3-player game vs player #3 in a
5-player game (may sound equal on paper but very different in practice)
Joe_Huber> If there are a number of questions (the time spent to
set the cost of buildings, for instance) that we want to collect, I'd be
happy to ask Stefan...
zaiga> Now there's an opportunity
Scurra> I'd be fascinated to know what the last stage of testing
was concerned with
zaiga> Stefan would make me a really happy man if he wrote a
short story about the development of Puerto Rico
maxwell> I have one question (besides who stefan is... ) I've
been reading up on this game, on various boards and a lot of people hate the
University. Am I in the minority because I'm new? Or are they right?
zaiga> Maxwell: Stefan Bruck, developer of Alea, th epublisher of
PR
Scurra> No - they're completely wrong
Joe_Huber> Stefan is Stefan Brueck = Alea.
Scurra> The University is great - *if* you can use it properly
Scurra> it's one of the ones that I think must have been
"repriced" a bit high to make it less powerful
zaiga> Whatever your opinion on individual buildings, there *are*
certainly differences in power between variou sbuildings. Is this a good or
a bad thing in a design?
Joe_Huber> University is a fine _early_ building. Which makes it
stand out among the expensive buildings...
Scurra> it's obviously a good thing!
zaiga> Why?
maxwell> I love not having to wait for a Mayor to use my
buildings! (other people can't do stuff before my building becomes active)
Joe_Huber> In PR, the differences in power are fine _except_ in a
five player game, IMHO.
DavemanUK> non-uniformity
DavemanUK> if everything was the same power at all times, you may
as well flip a coin to decide what to take
zaiga> But now there are some buildings that almost never get
build
zaiga> Such as the Large Warehouse
Scurra> Really?
Scurra> I think that's a groupthink thing again
DavemanUK> as long as the power levels fluctuate over time or
different # of players it's ok
Scurra> you go through stages of evaluating buildings
maxwell> In my group, I've never seen Large Warehouse (small is
enough, by the time you'd need more, you might have wharf)
Scurra> I certainly think that including some "rogue" buildings
is a good thing
zaiga> Actually, I think I like the fact that some buildings are
less useful. It's agood skilltester and some players might find it fun to
make a "bad" building work
Scurra> (in Magic, they call these cards "skill-testers"! They're
the marginal cards that look tempting but turn out not to be good enough)
DavemanUK> sure, it's fine that some buildings are less
frequently more powerful than others
Scurra> zaiga, yes - that's why I like the University!
zaiga> Scurra: that's how I got the idea
maxwell> In a five player game, not including the five 'big
buildings' how many buildings would be left over if each player filled their
tile (unlikely, I know)
DavemanUK> just adds to the apreciation value of the game and to
reward the experienced players a little
maxwell> It's like people who know how to use Zangief in the old
Street Fighter video game. He seems to suck unless in the right hands.
(sorry for the video game reference(
Scurra> The thing is Dave, sometimes you *should* buy those
buildings (when with experienced players) because it can offer a different
route that no-one else is following.
zaiga> maxwell: I agree. Some people enjoy making a "cool" move
or fllowing some unorthodix strategy even when they don't win the game with
it
zaiga> Magic developers have a name for these kind of people:
Johnnies
Scurra> I've found that the Large Warehouse can be useful with
the Factory strategy when you realise you can't reach the Wharf.
Scurra> zaiga, I'm proud to call myself a Johnny
maxwell> Is a "Johnny" derogatory?
zaiga> No, not at all
maxwell> (I've been out of Magic for a while now)
Scurra> I build decks around the most useless cards
zaiga> Magic developers have names for 3 different kind of
players...
DavemanUK> mm, there is an article explaining the psychological
happiness of some players when they just 'play around with the toys' in a
game rather than attempting to win it
zaiga> Johnny, which likes to come up with something cool,
winning is secondary
maxwell> We play with a guy named Phil who's always full of
surprises. Whenever one of us does something off center, we say it's a Phil
move
Scurra> Dave, I suspect that's why I'm a designer and not a
player
zaiga> Spike: the tournament player, who just wants to win
darkehorse> I'm definitely a Johnny
DavemanUK> scurra
zaiga> And Timmy, who just likes the Very Big Creatures
maxwell> wait, wasn't timmy the name for prodigal sorcerer?
Scurra> I think they're a good division of player types in
general
zaiga> Yeah, but that has to do with some obscure Monthy Python
reference
Scurra> PR works for both Spikes and Johnnies
zaiga> Scurra, it's useful for boardgames as well
Scurra> (not so well for Timmies though)
maxwell> I think when I play PR, I get the most enjoyment
watching how it unfolds, so as a Johnnie, I fit in.)
zaiga> The Spikes are usually hardest to please, they will
exploit any hole in the system
maxwell> And usually not much fun to play with
zaiga> Hey, I consider myself a Spike
zaiga> And I am loads of fun to play with
Scurra> I reckon that's why PR is only really a "niche" game,
regardless of how good it is
Torrent> not so..I think Timmy's exist in the board game world.
Scurra> because the Spike element is very strong in it
Scurra> torrent, I didn't say they didn't
zaiga> Because it doesn't appeal to Timmy (aka non-gamer)?
Scurra> I said that Timmies wouldn't really enjoy PR
maxwell> I bet you are. I only meant the extreme Spikes. The mean
ones.
Torrent> yeah.. i misread it, sorry
DavemanUK> quite possibly, Timmy exists on the social-level of
play whereby he is happy if one particular person wins other than himself
Torrent> I wouldn't say Timmy is the non-gamer.. but more of the
straightforeward player, no tricky stuff.
DavemanUK> (thinking of a typical family game where the son wants
the father to win and the daughter wants the mother to win)
maxwell> In PR, couldn't the Timmy be the person who strives for
the small/large market/office combo, or the wharf/harbour combo?
Scurra> And much as I rate PR, it just isn't that sort of a game
Scurra> maxwell, that's a good observation
Scurra> they're not Spike or Johnny approaches
maxwell> I've been down that road once. It's nice to get 7 for a
tobbacco (plus what's on the trader card)
maxwell> (if you picked trader)
zaiga> Still, I don't think PR would appeal so much to Timmy as
say... WarHammer or such games?
zaiga> All right, let's switch to another topic: the scarcity of
resources. How does that make the game interesting?
Scurra> are you talking buildings or plantations?
zaiga> Anything really
Scurra> the plantations are the only random element in the game
of course
zaiga> Free space in the trading hous or on the ships
zaiga> Or even th ebarrels
Scurra> one of things I love about PR is the ship-loading
mechanic
DavemanUK> other than the 'pseudo-randomness' of player
role-picks
Scurra> the idea that you can have a long-term effect on the next
few rounds simply by loading a single barrel of a commodity onto a ship
Scurra> (or forcing someone else to)
zaiga> It creates indirect interaction because you can deny
players a certain resource, for example by blocking a ship or avoid emptying
the trading house by not trading a good
DavemanUK> its quite a statement on the social-level as well as
the game-level
Scurra> in a sense, that's the reverse of "scarce" resources
zaiga> well, the available space on a ship is a scarce resource
DavemanUK> the scarcity does add good tension
Scurra> yes, but it makes some barrels "invisible" resouces
Scurra> because they can't be properly exploited
zaiga> It makes them temporarily less useful for an opponent,
true
DavemanUK> without scarcity there'd be no suspense hoping it's
still available by the time it comes around to you
Scurra> but limiting resources is generally a good design
principle
darkehorse> later all
Scurra> because it forces people to make choices
zaiga> So, the scarcity sort of introduces player interaction?
DavemanUK> (like waiting for that last number in Bingo)
Scurra> bye Darke
Scurra> as I said earlier, it's the subtle interaction I like!
zaiga> Also, it makes timing and strategy important, for example
you want to avoid growing the same high-valued crops as your right-hand
neighbour, because that is your most direct opponent when it comes to free
spots in the trading house.
zaiga> You have to plan you strategy around that
Scurra> It's interesting to compare with PoF, where the
interaction is directly clear; in PR you can have an interaction that pays
off a long way down the line
zaiga> It's often very subtle, I agree
DavemanUK> like a snowball effect (or what goes up must come
down)
Scurra> in PoF you buy something at the auction because you don't
want someone else to have it. In PR you choose the Captain because forcing a
rival to ship coffee will cause them no end of trouble for several rounds
zaiga> The scarcity also puts a damper on certain powerful
strategies. For example, there is less Corn in the game making the
Corn/Wharf strategy a bit more vulnerable
Scurra> I haven't been able to design interactions like that in a
game yet - at least not to that sort of level of sophistication!
DavemanUK> is it a good design tho if the game is all about
screwing over the ideal strategy at any one time?
DavemanUK> (even if the screwing is hidden/comes later to your
immediate positive action)
zaiga> People liek screwing in games
zaiga> like
Scurra> Yes, I still think it can be a good design
DavemanUK> sure, there are some very focused screwing games
Scurra> as Zaiga's just said, some people like to play like that
zaiga> I think that is one of the hardest things to balance well,
how much direct player interaction do you allow?
Svan> there's no better feeling than thwarting someone else's
plans
zaiga> Some people feel that way. Other's like to be able to plan
their own strategy and don't want others to mess with it
zaiga> I think the first group is larger
DavemanUK> mm, im equating the screwing tactics to the same
reasons people enjoy 'helping' others to make a choice
Scurra> Oh, I think the design should be robust enough to cope
with both types of course
Svan> i should for me there is no better feeling
DavemanUK> all about influencing other people, lol
Scurra> the rewards for screwing someone over should really be
less than those for "co-operating"
zaiga> Scurra: somehow in PR there is the right amount of
interaction so that both types feel comfortable
Scurra> but it's a fine dividing line
Svan> i like that way of thinking better
Scurra> exactly - one that PR manages beautifully
Scurra> I think the reason for that is that it offers some
"elbow-room"
zaiga> What do you mean with that?
Scurra> In PoF you have literally no time to change your plans if
they become derailed
Scurra> because you have seven auctions and fourteen actions and
that's it.
DavemanUK> in essence it's 'Prisoners Dilemma'?
Scurra> In PR you can often spend an action to do something not
directly related to your strategy
Scurra> without feeling that you've jeopardised your chances
zaiga> But why is that so?
Scurra> (even if you have!)
Scurra> I think it's partly the way the game is built
Scurra> because of that "everyone gets to do the action" mechanic
zaiga> Ah, so the differences are never really big?
Scurra> which means you sometimes get to do something you weren't
expecting
Torrent> do you end up with more turns in a 3 person game than a
5?
Scurra> the differences are sometimes really big - but they are
disguised better, that's all
Torrent> if not do you have a 'problem' with the fact that fewer
players lead to less actions that you coat-ride from others
zaiga> Torrent: no, because the game is tweaked for each
different # of players
DavemanUK> It's nice to have a plan-A and a plan-B (or more) in a
game
Scurra> torrent, no, the key difference is that some of the
resources are marginally less scarce, but that doesn't make it any easier!
zaiga> I like it when you can push your luck in a game if your
first plan didn't work out
Scurra> And one of the things about PR is that to do well you
need to know when to switch from plan A to plan B (and how to get back again
if it all goes wrong!)
zaiga> In that sense PR is more tactical than PoF
Scurra> indeed
Torrent> but does that mean that you can go into the game without
a strategy.. and just sort of play whatever
zaiga> That's another topic I wanted to discuss...
jwarrend> Have you guys talked about the table order effect?
DavemanUK> mm, there may be very subtle bluffing when switching
plans
Torrent> or do you have to have an idea of what direction you
want to take, before you start
Scurra> Ah. We're heading for "opening book" territory!
zaiga> The low amount of luck in the game and the fixed set of
rule-bending buildings make it possible to theorize about the game
beforehand and have some kind of preset strategy. Is this good or bad?
zaiga> I told you it was coming
zaiga> Jeff: yes, that was the first topic we discussed
DavemanUK> yup, PR seems to have both "end game" and "opening
game" theories to write about
DavemanUK> but the middle bit is all tactics
Scurra> I certainly sense that the better players seem to bring
nothing pre-determined to the game but are very clear about what to do after
certain opening choices are made
DavemanUK> persoanlly i love to theorize on strategies when not
playing a game
DavemanUK> in essence im 'playing' the game without physially
playing it
zaiga> I think some people like to discuss these kind of
strategies. And it seems to give the game some kind of status among gamers
(gamer's game)
Scurra> and PR seems to have a very wide range of those choices
jwarrend> I agree with Scurra -- I think you can make almost any
initial combo of purchases work, and the art of the game is to make them
work to their full effect.
Scurra> (compared to PoF, which some players have dismissed as
only having two viable approaches, although I think they're wrong, there are
certainly less options than in PR)
zaiga> PR is a great example of chaos theory... how one small
difference in the beginning can have huge effects on the outcome
jwarrend> I think it's tough to theorize about strategies in this
game, because you never know what you're going to get in the plantation
pool, and that little bit of randomness makes a HUGE difference on the game
jwarrend> But, if you want to talk strategy...does anyone else
feel the Hospice is too cheap for what it is?
Scurra> Jeff, I don't think that's as big an issue as it appears
though
jwarrend> What's not as big an issue?
Scurra> that the planations are "random"
Scurra> There are a restricted number at any one time
zaiga> But they do ensure that every game plays out differently
Scurra> and they require different buildings too
jwarrend> Sure it's an issue in terms of formulating strategy --
if I go in saying "I'm going to do a shipping strategy" and I end up drawing
Table Position 1 and then never get corn, I'm not going to follow that
strategy to much success...
Scurra> Jeff, that's why I said that players don't go into PR
thinking something like that
jwarrend> I agree that the plantations don't introduce a "luck of
the draw" effect, I just think they cloud "strategic" pre-game thinking.
Scurra> But what they do do is to look at the opening planations
and say "ah, I can do the "sugar" run" or something
zaiga> Exactly
Scurra> Jeff, I don't think we're actually arguing about this
jwarrend> Right, Scurra, and that's why I agreed with you!
DavemanUK> preparation of such strategies is a good plan
jwarrend> Oh. Good, I didn't think so either
Scurra> but I do think that knowing how likely it is to be able
to do X if you're sitting third in a five-player game is relevant
Scurra> I imagine someone is working on the "PR Opening Book"
book even now!
zaiga> However, because of such things less-experienced will have
a lot of catching up to do
DavemanUK> indeed, i guess theres a good dozen or two such
openings
Scurra> there must be enough evidence from BSW games to be able
to follow through a lot of variations
zaiga> I think every game needs a little bit of luck to ensure
that there is no "perfect"strategy
zaiga> Or at least, that it differs drom game to game
DavemanUK> it does seem a good balance between choosing the best
opening (strategy) and implementing it (tactics)
Scurra> hey, it hasn't been a problem for Chess
DavemanUK> well poker is about 12% luck? seems a fair amount
zaiga> Scurra: yes and no. If you do not know a hundred or so
openings you won't stand a chance against experienced players
zaiga> Of course, there are so many permutation in Chess that
things start to get clouded after turn 10 or so
Scurra> Oh I agree - but I think that that applies to PR too
DavemanUK> mm, chess as a complex form of tic-tac-toe?
Scurra> (says someone who knows *one* Chess opening, but knows it
/really/ well
Scurra> well for the opening at least Dave.
DavemanUK> chess wouldn't have been as popular had it either 4
pieces a side or 40
zaiga> True, but much less than in Chess, because you need to
factor in the random plantation draw, which means that there is a larger
number of "opening moves"
Scurra> but there are only certain sorts of combinations that you
need to think about
Scurra> which I think is a very clever limiting mechanic
Scurra> - they all get replaced, regardless of what was taken
DavemanUK> im sure someone has worked out all the probabilites of
various plantations showing up early
zaiga> Perhaps, but even if there are 5 or so combinations that
are important, that still multiplies the amount of moves with 5.
Scurra> Dave, yes - DT (sorry, private joke)
Scurra> I'm not trying to suggest there is some sort of
definitive opening list
zaiga> I suggest: Settler - Quarry
Scurra> but what gives PR its strength (for me) is that there
clearly are a solid series of "opening plays" that then dictate the general
direction of the early game
DavemanUK> mm, well at least working out the probabilities is
another extension of enjoying playing the game without physically playing it
zaiga> The picks in the first round are almost forced
Scurra> In a five-player game I like being second when the first
player does that
zaiga> Then it starts to get hazy quickly
DavemanUK> sure, that's the moment when the strategy (from the
initial seating order/plantation analysis) merges into the tactics
DavemanUK> seems fine to me
zaiga> All right. The final topic I want to bring up is a very
polarizing one. Hidden VP's or no?
Scurra> Always hidden!
jwarrend> Sure, why not?
Scurra> Open for the first couple of games
zaiga> Because it introduces an annoying memory aspect and this
is out of tune with the rest of the game?
Scurra> because people need to have an idea of how they build up
Scurra> No, because it's the patterns of acquisition that count,
not the exact values
Scurra> you generally have a "sense" of how much people are
getting for shipping
zaiga> But in the end it might be important to knwo ho wmuch
everyone has to figure out how to win?
jwarrend> It's not a memory aspect unless you actually try to
memorize it. I don't, and don't know anyone who does. I know that such
players do exist, but in my group, "playing by feel" is a lot more fun than
playing by analysis.
Scurra> zaiga, if you are in that position, I think you've
probably lost already
zaiga> (playing the devil's advocate actually )
Scurra> I'd never have guessed
DavemanUK> true, you want the game to end just before the
corn-king gets to ship for 6 more vps
jwarrend> "Subsequently secret info" games like Tigris, Acquire,
PR really don't intend for you to memorize the info. I think people who try
to/can tend to "break" not necessarily the mechanics, but certainly the
"experience" the games intend to provide.
zaiga> If VP's were open and people would really pay attention to
them that might cause AP in the endgame not to mention horrible kingmaker
scenario's
Scurra> yes - that's why I advocate open for the first couple of
games - so that people get to see that problem early!
zaiga> And there are enough VP transactions that you can't
remember them all anyway
jwarrend> Exactly.
Scurra> jeff, I hate playing Acquire with "closed" holdings
because that game really does reward the memorisers
DavemanUK> hidden VPs make for a nice surprise at the end (how
may times have you said 'wow i never knew you had so much')
zaiga> Still, there are quite a bit of groups that play with open
VP's
jwarrend> Fair enough, but I won't get into that perennial debate
now since we're talking PR here!
Scurra> as long as they are prepared for the end-game issues,
that shouldn't be a problem
Scurra> jeff, you mentioned it first
Torrent> it seems like it harkens to the hidden castle stash of
cubes in El Grande.
zaiga> We will discuss El Grande in 2 weeks
Torrent> almost.. but not quite, since VPs are your actual
victory in PR
DavemanUK> interesting that the VPs didnt start all open but then
some buildings made them hide for a player
jwarrend> zaiga, you're definitely right. But I think there are
groups that play "open holdings, always". I just think those people are more
serious than me, and that's fine.
Scurra> that might be an interesting idea Dave
Scurra> you can't play "Speed-PR" with open holdings - at least I
don't think you can
zaiga> I think as a designer I will always include some "hidden"
scoring aspect, to prevent AP and kingmaking
DavemanUK> scurra, cant think of a game where some player's VPs
are hidden while some players are open
jwarrend> I just think that these games are not supposed to
"feel" like you're playing Chess, scrutinizing the board analyzing every
possible eventuality. It's supposed to be fun!
zaiga> Some people think analyzing every possible move is fun
Scurra> yes, I think I'd subscribe to that principle as well
zaiga> But I do agree in principle
zaiga> Keep the game moving if possible
jwarrend> zaiga, the dilemma here, and in Acquire, is that the
info was "once public" but is now hidden. So, it's trackable in theory. On
the other hand, games with a "secret goal", perhaps, are much better because
they solve both problems (memorizing AND AP)
Scurra> but games with a secret goal tend towards the chaotic too
jwarrend> Depends on the game. Check out my workshop entry next
week and see for yourself!
zaiga> Jeff: agreed, but the idea is that there are so many
transactions that is not possible for most people to memorize them all. So,
in essence it is semi-hidden. You have a vague idea, but you don't know
exaclty.
zaiga> Urban Construct has hidden goal cards
Torrent> so does Tourney
DavemanUK> Paris-Paris has a hidden VP bonus at the end but I
found out it's easy to keep count by using your remaining shop markers like
an abacus
jwarrend> Oh, yes, I completely agree -- PR is not trackable by
me. But I think a lot of people on spielfrieks argue from theory, ie, "there
may be someone out there who can track info perfectly -- does it give him an
edge?" I find such pontification a little sil
zaiga> Well, if you someone remember it perfectly, that's great
for him!
zaiga> That's maybe 1% of all the players, as a designer I
wouldn't worry about that too much
zaiga> Because it is such a great tool for the other 99%
jwarrend> gotta go -- adios muchachos
DavemanUK> as long as such counting doesnt break the game it
should be a nice little bonus to those that can (and i mean a very little
bonus)