jwarrend wrote:What makes this mechanic so interesting and successful is the head game that comes out of it.
Someone finally said something that I disagree with strongly enough to argue about it.
Well, let me observe that certainly one shouldn't refrain from chiming in with one's approval, as one who only chimes in only to register disapproval could gain a reputation as something of a "naysayer"... (kidding)
This head game you mention isn't what's interesting about the Role Selection mechanic, as ANY mechanic can bring up a "had game".
What I'm calling a "head game", Scurra more properly couched in terms of a "psychology" excercise. What I'm talking about is the idea that on your turn, you are trying to figure out not just "what is the best move", but also "what are the other players likely to pick?" You're right that games other than Role Selection games can have an element of this (although Monopoly doesn't), but central to all of the designs we've talked about here is this very present need to base your decisions on the likely actions of others. As zaiga once called it, this is "I think that he thinks that I think..." kind of decision making.
Roles selection is a source of choice, so I guess you could say that I'm arguing against myself here, but my point is that I think we were closer to the crux of the Role Selection mechanic when we were breaking it down into the different flavors of the mechanic.
Depends on what one considers crucial. In terms of "what player experience does Role Selection lead to?", I think Scurra is quite right -- it leads, in all of these implementations discussed here, to trying to predict what your opponents are likely to do; what I call a "head game".
A better answer would be another question- what do you mean by keeping the spirit of the games?
What I mean is, similar to what I think David was asking, when we create a "role selection" game, should we be emphasizing the functional aspects of "choosing a role from a set of choices", or should we be striving to ensure that the player experience created by role selection games -- tension arising from trying to predict the actions of others -- also comes through in our own mechanics? This isn't a question with a right answer, I think it's just an open discussion topic.
In our designs, if we intend to use a Role Selection mechanic, does it need to feel the same way as one of these 5 games? I think not. Will it feel that way weather we like it or not? I don't know, but I don't think it's necessary. I'm not sure the question you pose has an answer.
Maybe not, but you did try to answer it! In all seriousness, I think the question is just "which is more important to you -- the tension associated with what actions others will choose, or the tension associated with a restricted set of choices?"
-Jeff
Sorry to be so slow to reply to the big debate about the definition of role selection. It seems to have calmed with JW agreeing that Scurra et. al. were right to see differences and the other side agreeing that they had enough in common to warrant discussion together. (If that improperly paraphrases your views, sorry!).
I completely agree that Puerto Rico's variable phase order (as distinct from variable turn order) is very different in its flavour, but I think the essence of the mechanic is superficially similar: players draft (secretly or openly) roles which grant them special priveleges for a short period of the game. While the phase order element is massive, as it triggers what opponents do, there is still a similar element there. So, I'd defend my original post, although I definitely appreciate Scurra and Seth highlighting the subtleties it may have glossed over.
On the topic of Verrater, which Jeff pointed out had been neglected despite being the trailblazer in this field... It's a great game, and Meuterer is a personal favourite (although it's ages since I played, mainly because I've been absent from BSW where I played it a lot). The games essentially require you to play cards from your hand to the table. In Verrater, you have an overt alignment to one side or the other in a civil war, and are laying down military support for your chosen side. The roles you select at the end of a turn will generally give bonuses/draws/etc. but the Verrater card allows you to switch alignment *just* before the battle totals are examined. As the optimal scoring possibility is to win with the least possible number of people on your side, this can be very desireable. A key element of the game is working out whom out of the earlier players took the Verrater, or if it is the role placed face-down for a round.
In Meuterer you are scoring on your own, by laying down goods cards, which you hope to offer the largest supply of a kind. The roles chosen will allow you to win ties (I recall- not sure about that one), draw more cards etc. etc. They will also decide if you are involved in a mutiny: the Captain and First Mate fight to subdue any mutiny by the Mutineer (a.k.a. Meuterer, who becomes Captain if the mutiny succeeds) and Cabin Boy.
Best wishes,
Richard.