Thanks for your insight. I haven’t been in this world very long, but it doesn’t take much observation to realize that there is a lot of “shiny object” syndrome when it comes to board games, especially considering the plethora of options available. I’ve watched a bunch of reviewer videos and the impression I get is that people are just trying to “check off” boxes rather than really spend time with a game. I think that’s what I found so intriguing about Rym and Scott video series and the general philosophy on games that I’ve seen in this forum… people really want to explore the strategic and entertainment potential of the games before trying other stuff. That really resonates with me.
I live in Taiwan, so I’m limited by choice and availability of games as it is, so I think I’ll be getting more plays with a smaller set of games anyways.
My girlfriend’s parents are very involved in Taiwan’s Circular Economy association. For those of you who aren’t familiar with Circular Economy, it’s an economic model that rejects the current unsustainable global “linear” economic model (harvest resources, turn into goods, sell, use, then dispose). The objective of a Circular Economy is to “close” these loops so resources (especially limited ones) can be reused, recycled, remanufactured, etc.
Two aspects of this economy model that I find really interesting is that: 1) from the consumer side, there’s an emphasis on “using” things and not “owning” things and 2), it encourages manufacturers to reject the notion of “planned obsolescence” and design higher quality products with much longer lifetimes. Once this step is achieved, they don’t sell the products but “lease” the products to consumers. Once that lease period is over, the consumer returns the product to the manufacturer who either remanufactures or re-leases at a discounted rate. As you can see, the manufacturer continuously owns these “assets” and is responsible for keeping the loop going.
For the tabletop gaming veterans in this thread, do you see this model ever becoming a tabletop game industry trend in the future? The reason I ask this question is for a few reasons:
After purchasing games, it seems most gamers only play a game a few times (or a 100 times, the point still holds) before the game’s ultimate fate is to sit on a shelf and gather dust.
My understanding is that games and game components cost and prices are generally trending up.
I understanding a big benefit of “owning” things is convenience. You can rent a game from your local game shop but there just isn’t the same flexibility and convenience of owning the game and having it ready to go at any time. That being said, the prospect of “leasing” a game for 6 months or 1 year is interesting because you effectively own it during that period of time and 1 year is certainly enough time to get a lot of enjoyment and utility out of the game.
Leasing and releasing could potentially be a way for publishers to squeeze more revenue out of limited print runs.
Owning tabletop games takes up a lot of real estate and I’m sure the minimalists and non-collectors out there wouldn’t be opposed to returning games after a certain period of time.
As the manufacturer/publisher “owns” the game, they could relieve the consumer of the burden of having to trade or sell the game and handle the logistics for the consumer.
I’m still new to this and could be completely wrong, so please don’t hesitate to educate me. Learning about Circular Economy has really opened my eyes and changed the way I see things (especially different industries and businesses) and I’m really curious to see what you think.
The issue with board games in the Circular model you described (and really most complex goods in general) is that it’s not economically feasible to pay for transportation for the item, pay for the inspection that has to happen as it is returned, and put it back up for sale vs just making an entirely new item. You’re better off recycling the used game and just manufacturing another.
To some degree it does seem like the kickstarter shotgun blast model is dependent on a rotating group of new tabletop gamers… people with disposable income get in, buy a lot of games, and eventually calm down.
I think I need to take our GeekNights reviews and start to form a metric of longevity. How many plays among the same group will a game survive at minimum?
I’m shocked when I find a game that can make it past 4-5. 10+ is already a legendary game.
Oft the top of my head, these are the games that stand the test not of time, but of play. In no particular order.
Tigris & Euphrates
Wizard
Hansa Teutonica
Zendo
The list drops off pretty fast.
Games that have a lot of plays, but where I’ve seen the eventual breakdown or at least feel its looming dire presence on the horizon:
Carcassonne (+ Inns & Cathedrals and extra tiles)
El Grande (eventually becomes pure math politics and seat order)
Amun Re (I still enjoy it, but I believe I completely and perfectly understand it)
Quartermaster General
St. Petersberg
Fresh Fish
These are games I’ll still gladly play any time they hit the table.
Very short games (<30min) get a pass since even if they break down, they’re so short that they usually still end up being fun. Looking at you Paris Connection.
I… sort of understand your assessments, but they’re obviously going to be personal. For one, I’m surprised you consider Wizard/Oh Hell an evergreen but not Saint Pete. I find Saint Petersburg is quite good at generating interesting, novel game states that play out in subtle ways worthy of post-game analysis… Wizard is more of a straightforward chaos generator.
Post-expansion, I do find the dynamics of acquiring noses to be terrifyingly straightforward. If I played this every day for a few weeks, I think it would lock down again in my brain.
Wizard I am regularly surprised by difficult odds calculations, which force me to expand into more complex heuristics. They’re getting dire. I’m counting cards in my hand as 1/3 of a trick.
Is the endgame, even if there’s nothing new to discover, still fun/playable?
Political games with chaos or heavy interaction can be playable despite breaking down strategically. But a Euro enginebuilder? You solve that equation, the game is just done.
I actually find the counterplay for a first turn Mistress in 2p Saint Petersburg fascinating… I recall a thread to that effect on BGG, and some online play logs, proving that the conclusion is not as foregone as you might think (although it does shift your odds to something like 60/40). It’s not a “many paths to victory” game - everyone needs to end the game with an equal number of aristocrats, everyone needs to conspire to ensure someone doesn’t get ahead on workers - but there is a large space to play in that still leads to that final state, and the winner is going to be the player that navigated that path most effectively, modulo the flop of the cards and the decisions of the other players. When everyone wants the same thing, how are you going to drive your decisions and create favorable conditions for yourself?
There are too many factories involved in the longevity of a game for it to be universally meaningful.
M:tG, Netrunner, Warhammer, and other customizable/living games have a lot of longevity due to a flow of new content. Until the flow stops, then they stagnate with a solved meta. It’s not just the merits of the game mechanics itself, but the games business model that artificially add longevity.
Some games that don’t really have that much going on, like Wizard or even QMG, have lots of longevity thanks to RNG mixing things up and making a new experience every time you play. The longevity exists, but not necessarily based on the merits of the games mechanics. Pretty much any game can add some RNG to its setup phase to add cheap longevity.
Meanwhile games like T&E which have a lot less RNG, and Zendo, with no RNG, have tons of longevity actually based on the game itself. The actual mechanics of the game have such a quality that the mind never tires of engaging that machine.
Playing a board game occasionally with a varied set of players is like regular season hockey.
Playing the same board game over and over until you deeply master it is like playoff hockey. It’s the main thing I’m after in tabletop: a game I can play many times and develop mastery in without getting bored.
Yeah, it definitely wasn’t 100% in 2p. It just meant that the first player had to make no mistakes, and the second player had to spend the entire early/mid game attempting to counter. It made it a very different game… Almost… like an assymetric wargame.
I much prefer corrected St. Petersberg. And I love playing it over and over. But I think if I was locked in a room playing St. Pete and Hansa Teutonica over and over and over, the former would break before the latter.
St. Pete really shines with 3-4 players though. Hansa shines with 3 or 5, but never 4.
I mean, every game eventually breaks down. Chess is broken at the top tiers.
I want chess but not chess, for a bunch of different kinds of games. And this is exactly what I get.
Take Amon Re. I’ve played this to its final form. I’ve experienced this game from beginning to end, and become a master. I lived the life of a chess master, but in the span of a few years.
What I love about non-chess tabletop games is that I get to live the life of a chessmaster, from birth to death, over and over and over again.
For what it’s worth, I think (world-class) chess isn’t as broken as you might. I think the world championship last year was an outlier, with both guys playing conservatively due to the format of the match.
If no human can beat an AI ever again, and the attractors of chess are draws rather than conclusions… High skill humans will become increasingly obligated to play toward a draw unless they are assured victory.
Granted, for the far majority of chess players, this won’t ever be a problem, since they’ll never play at that level.
This is also a useful distinction… if I had to weight initial discovery, mastery, and the pleasure of engaging with other people through the systems of the game, I’d weight mastery ever so slightly less. Of course, it’s not easy to draw a line between “initial discovery” and “mastery”. It’s more acute in solitaire designs.
Recently, I like to dive into some designs that take effort just to learn… hence the wargames. Reminds me of when I used to read RPGs. Last game was High Frontier. Right now I’m reading Empire of the Sun, 30 pages of rules for air cover, intel, inter-service rivalry, political will, joint allied offensives…