I just came across a long interview with Reiner Knizia, the great German boardgame designer, here:
http://kumquat.com/cgi-kumquat/funagain/knizia2
Other Qt3rs have one foot in the boardgame world may want to check it out. He's got some interesting things to say about game design in general, too.
This guy may be a board game design genius, but he doesn't get it. And by "it", I mean computer gaming.SG: The video/computer game industry has sucked a great deal of life out of the board game industry in the United States. People, especially young people, are drawn in by the sound and fury of video games and have, more or less, abandoned board games. Why hasn't this happened in Germany?
RK: Well, of course, there is a strong influence of video games in Germany, and they're a big part of the market share. Of course, it does take money out of the board game market, however these are two very very different things which satisfy two very different needs. I'm not a very big video game player. It really doesn't have what I'm looking for in a game. For me, games offer a stage where I can have a good time with other people. I don't want to have a good time with the screen of my PC. It's the other people that make each board game experience fresh. It's not about winning. I mean, I want to win, but winning is not important. It's about measuring your wits with other people, seeing how you come out, and seeing the reactions of the others. For this, I prefer my human counterpart sitting across the table than my PC.
SG: I think some people see electronic gaming as, ultimately, a threat to traditional boardgaming.
RK: People are not afraid of their washing machines. What does that mean? Everybody uses their washing machines and there are electronics in there. We don't classify a washing machine as an electronic thing, but we still do that with games. I'm absolutely convinced that soon we will see a new type of game that still gives us the atmosphere and the feel of classic, traditional boardgames -- with players seated around a table, but that these games will be electronically supported. You won't really notice it, but you'll get a much richer experience and you can concentrate much more on the gameplay because everything else is very naturally taken over by the unit and supported by the unit. That's something I'm working on very strongly. There are some specific things to be seen this year and I hope that I will be part of that new development because I'm absolutely convinced that that's where we will end up.
OK, given the above response, I'll amend my previous post. The internet provides an environment where you don't need to pick the game based on the preferences of the person you are with. You can pick the game you enjoy the most, and you will be able to find willing, competent players for that game at any time of day. This may be a completely alien concept to most boardgamers, and it definitely is to this guy.People very often ask me "what is your favorite game?" and the answer for me is that there is no such thing as a favorite game. A game for me is nothing absolute. A game lives through the people who play it. Therefore, my favorite game depends upon which group of people I'm with, and what we prefer. For instance, I'd play different games with my parents than with a group of friends. With my parents I play a lot of traditional German card games. I have one friend from school with whom I play nothing but Speed Chess and it's only with him that I play Speed Chess because it works for us, and it's just enjoyable. What's enjoyable for me is the time spent with other people -- different people create different atmospheres. You need the right game for the right occasion.
For me, it's absolutely about the game first and foremost. It's not that I don't enjoy the company of other gamers-- but I'd prefer to pick the games I enjoy the most and later form frendships as necessary around those games. It seems unnatural to do it any other way.
It's also weird to express "time spent with other people" exclusively in gaming terms. Certainly there are lots of other ways to spend face time with people that are just as rewarding, and maybe more practical. Perhaps it's a German uber-overachieving boardgame designer thing.
I am not with you 100%, wumpus. I totally get what Knizia is saying, and I don't even think that he doesn't "get" computer games, even though he does say that they aren't his cup of tea. In fact, I'll go a step further and flip that around--I don't think that you "get" board games.
The social aspect of board games is a strong plus in their favor, and one that Internet gaming doesn't even come close to replicating (much in the same way that Internet gaming doesn't come close to replicating the experience of playing console games on the couch with a few friends). Internet gaming has it's advantages, but it's not a particularly social affair. Maybe when voice communication is the norm things will be different.
Exactly Ben, as a board gamer and a computer gamer I get quite different things out of them. The social part of board gaming is a big part of it. Myself and a group of friends have a regular Wednesday night session. It tends to be 18xx focussed, but we also play a lot of "German" games. We also have more infrequent LAN parties (which are fantastic fun as well), but board games are far easier to set up, play, and tear down than getting everyone's computers in one place and connected up.
One of the things Reiner Knizia says he's working on is computer assistance for board games. I'd love to get away from the "screen" paradigm of computer gaming, and move to the "gaming table" where you sit around and look at your opponents, with the display like a table in between you. The computer takes care of the tedious mechanics like combat resolution and scoring, (and rules interpretation!) while the players get on with the serious business of outsmarting each other.
One of the advantages of a board game is the ability to see much more of what is occuring than with the small real-estate of a computer screen. Using 1830 as an example, with the computer game you need to access sperate screens for each of the map, company status (trains, tokens and cash), remaining track tiles and player holdings (shares and cash). With the board game all that information is readily available, right in front of you (and your subconcious is probably picking up details your not aware of at the time - ie you might be looking at the map, while seeing how many critical tiles are left)
And wumpus, he's not just "this guy", IMHO he's as much a gaming god as Sid Meier.
Reiner is such an established designer that it is tough NOT to play one of his titles during a night of gaming. I played Traumfabrik and Ra last night, both by him.
For me, the difference between online gaming and board gaming are expectations. As mentioned before, when online gaming, I am playing a game that will always be MY choice, and it is usually with strangers. Because of that, I want to WIN WIN WIN. While this has its time and place, it is a far cry from board gaming where you get together with friends and acquaintenances, and while winning is certainly nice, it is of a lesser value than in the online world.
I would never give up online gaming, but all other things being equal, I much prefer boardgaming for a night's entertainment.
Yes, boardgaming (or card-gaming, it's much the same thing) can be a blast with the right friends. Same thing with pnp role playing. You have that immediate social interaction. I don't think it has to be "all about the game" or "all about social interaction." It can be both at the same time. Sports are the same thing -- when you go to hit a tennis ball or have a catch with a friend, you are engaging with them socially, chatting about all the week's events, etc., but also honing an enjoyable skill. Gaming, like eating, can provide a useful pretext for social interaction.
I don't think the internet can ever quite replace that social aspect. Perhaps that's why people like LAN parties, etc. Not that there's anything wrong with internet gaming, obviously... it's just a different sort of experience.
Anyway, electronic board games are here to stay:
Ah yes, the game that taught me the word "Brigand".
Dark Tower had nothing on Voice of the Mummy:Originally Posted by Gordon Cameron
Dark Tower was a blast, I still have my copy, though it doesn't work anymore.... :x
Does anyone know anything about the King Arthur game Knizia mentions in the interview? He cites it as an exciting example of incorporating electronics into a boardgames, and my first thought was of Dark Tower, but I couldn't find any specific descriptions of what King Arthur does in this respect. I guess it's only been published in Germany so far.
Knizia's comments make complete sense to me too. I'm primarily an analog gamer, and what little digital gaming I do is almost entirely solo. Games vs strangers just hold no appeal for me at all, and that's what most online games offer.
My original interest with computer games was in having a willing opponent for the kind of games I like. Part of the reason that is waning is that I shrewdly bred a couple of willing opponents who are now old enough to be a lot of fun to play games like LOTR with. We've also got a working Dark Tower. Part of my breeding plan was a Boys From Brazil style recreation of game experiences I grew up with. Thank goodness for ebay.
And Chris, one of the Dark Towers I got was defective and I found someone who did a great repair job on it for about $30 as I remember. At the time, she was selling repair jobs via ebay, but had a separate web site too. Let me know if you're interested and I'll try to track it down again.
Since when is social interaction part of the definition of a game, or even a boardgame? Chess is a boardgame, and it can be played (and is regularly played) without speaking a single word.
A game, like anything else, can be used as a starting point for social activity, but ultimately you play to win.
In my opinion the Internet allows the games to be purer by reducing the social overhead to a minimum and emphasizing the competitive part.
http://www.terminalcitygamers.com/ga...kingarthur.htm
The game is German only because, well, the knight speaks German. From what I hear, there are no plans for the game to be picked up by Rio Grande and brought over to the states.
That's probably because Rio Grande doesn't really "pick up" German games. Their whole crossover market is really dependent on co-publishing deals that allow both editions (German and English language) to be printed in the same run then shipped to the US. The economy of scale in full effect.
I've noticed that Fantasy Flight is running most of their Reiner games in worldwide editions as well, so we're reversing the trend and printing some of them over here first.
It'll be interesting to see if any US company is willing to take the risk on the electronic game. It's probably a more complicated and costly undertaking.
Your Power Pill
One doesn't ultimately play to win, all the time. Sometimes one really does just play to play. Yes, I suppose with the Internet the games are "purer." But there is no particular reason why "pure" gaming is desirable over gaming-as-socializing. There is no reason to say one or the other is preferable. It depends on what you want. I certainly wouldn't be without the social gatherings I have enjoyed thanks to Magic, Risk, Talisman etc. -- even though I was hardly expert at any of those games. They were generally more relaxed experiences than my online Age of Empires II encounters -- which tended to be high-pressure, stressful, and in their own way quite exhilarating. Apples and oranges. (Of course you can have a social group together online to play a computer game for low stakes, but in that case the social need is surely better filled by the face-to-face contact of a game around a table.)
I see no reason to put this question in "either/or" terms; we are talking about different needs being served.
[size=2]Edit: To acknowledge overlap with Gordon's post.[/size]
Thanks for the link, Lionel.
No offense, nezz, but that's a pretty absolutist argument against absolutism. I don't think anybody's defining boardgames as such, but social interaction is a big part of why a lot of us choose to play them. Describing a game as more "pure" because it has less social overhead is to ignore the whole history and culture of gaming. MPOGs are just a new and different incarnation of a vast and varied form entertainment. Interesting in their own right, but not more refined or pure by definition.
And I for one definitely don't play to win. I play with winning as the goal, but the real interest and entertainment I derive from a gaming experience is in the story that unfolds through playing. That's why I prefer dynamic or non-linear computer games over tightly-scripted ones, but in a face-to-face social gaming situation, the "story" is usually much more interesting to me because it depends so much on player interaction. I enjoy losing if the way I got there was entertaining.
This is the core design element of Knizia's LOTR game -- It's cooperative, so either everyone wins or no one wins, and there are so many tough decisions and opportunites for teamwork that the way it plays out depends entirely on the personalities of the individuals playing. People become Frodo and Sam and Gollum without even realizing it, because the gameplay hinges on the psychological aspects of group decision-making and interaction.
Highly competitive people don't usually like LOTR, but its enormous success proves that judgement is a matter of taste, not an objective statement about wether it's pure or impure, good or bad.
" I'm absolutely convinced that soon we will see a new type of game that still gives us the atmosphere and the feel of classic, traditional boardgames -- with players seated around a table, but that these games will be electronically supported."
Isn't that a LAN?
I think he means something a bit more widely available. Most people don't have access to a LAN for gaming purposes.
It's close, but I think there's still a crucial difference. In LAN gaming, even though everyone may be looking at the same game environment, each person is still focused on his own screen, and verbal interaction is of the over-the-shoulder or shout-across-the-room variety. When everyone's gathered around a single, central focus, the nature of the interaction is entirely different. The board on the table or cards in your hand may hold a good deal of your attention, but in games with a psychological aspect, the other players hold the rest.
I don't think the specific qualities of actual face-to-face interaction can be underestimated. There is no substitute for the subtleties and specifics of face-to-face interaction. For example, you can play poker online or in a LAN setting, but it strips out what makes the game really work, which is to be able to read your opponent.
LAN games could certainly evolve in this direction, but it's highly doubtful. Computer game culture seems to evolve toward what suits it best, and board game culture does the same thing. What's more likely is that a hybrid will come into being, and that King Arthur game may be the first example. It sounds sort of like a simplified tabletop RPG with an AI gamemaster, retaining face-to-face interaction while incoporating an active game system.
[size=2]Edited for typos[/size]
Interestingly, a number of highly social games seem to have gameplay in which the "skill" element is downplayed. Usually randomness fills in the gap. The more random a game is, the more it depends on rolls of the dice or draws of a card, the less the outcome depends on individual skill.
So, a bunch of people can all get together and play Risk or Talisman or Monopoly, and whoever wins isn't *that* big a deal. The others can reassure themselves by remembering how random the game is anyway. This in turn may ease tension and bolster the "social" element. People who want a serious test of skill -- e.g. chess -- will be impatient with this sort of game.
(Although, on the other hand, a game like poker, which has random card-draws, does seem to have a lot of skill involved as well. I don't know much about poker so I'm not sure why this is.)
We've run a Monday night gaming group that's been meeting for over 7 years, so I have some knowledge of what I speak.
There's a 2nd dynamic that occurs with board gaming that's important here, and that's the social inter-dynamic of the group itself.
When someone starts to win a lot the group will naturally start to "gang up on him" over the next few weeks. Certainly no matter how good/smart/lucky you are, over time the other players will adapt to your strategy, and you'll start to lose.
Social dynamics have a huge impact on gameplay, but at the same time they are part of the game experience. That's especially true in bidding and trading games, where you are constantly in direct competition with your opponent.
The other thing that I love about these games is that they can simulate so much using so little. They have the feel of much larger simulation systems using only a small amount of information. The ability to do that is one of the main reasons that Reiner is such a genius.
Your Power Pill
Tim wrote.....
Tim,I found someone who did a great repair job on it for about $30
That info would be great, thanks. I know my nephew would love this game.
Maybe he meant the intarweb?I think he means something a bit more widely available. Most people don't have access to a LAN for gaming purposes.
-wumpus
Can we define "enormous success"? Like 6 million copies of GTA3 enormous success? I ask because nobody I know plays board games regularly outside of monopoly/risk/etc. These high-end boutique boardgames seem more complex and less accessible than monopoly, too.Highly competitive people don't usually like LOTR [the board game], but its enormous success proves that judgement is a matter of taste, not an objective statement about wether it's pure or impure, good or bad.
-wumpus
How the hell did Monopoly get to be such a big success anyway? I really don't think it's much fun at all. I guess it just tapped into some deep well of the American psyche... Plus, the little metal pieces are nice. (Hat, shoe, car, etc.) Gameplay... well, like Talisman you pretty much just roll dice and draw cards, but at least Talisman had cool art.
Many mainstream boardgames (particularly "classics" like Monopoly, Life, etc.) are nearly 100% random. This is an example of the other extreme--they are popular with people that play games entirely for the social experience, and don't care about the game itself much at all. Because really, Monopoly requires about as much skill as a coin toss.
I think game makers have gone away with that somewhat, even in mainstream boardgames. A lot of the more contemporary classics place more of an emphasis on player skill, especially skill that involves socialization (Trivial Pursuit, Pictionary, etc.).
Yes, there's no barrier to entry with a game like Monopoly. Asking someone to play chess is like asking them to play tennis -- you have to know how to play it, and if you don't, then the experience will be no fun for either. The concept of "knowing how to play" Monopoly, however, is practically nonsensical.
Trivial Pursuit is less randomized in the sense that you have to know facts to do well, but this is not a specific game skill -- just general knowledge -- so the barrier to entry is still pretty low. You don't have to practice Trivial Pursuit.
Makes money, lots of it. People like it, and everyone involved in its production are happy
No.Like 6 million copies of GTA3 enormous success?
It's successful relative to other board games.
Lot's of people here have had enormous successes that didn't involve 6 Million people.
I've made "enormously successful" flash games that have been played by more then 6 Million people, but I don't consider them to be "more successful then GTA3".
When in doubt break out the anecdotal evidence…I ask because nobody I know plays board games regularly outside of monopoly/risk/etc.
Most of them were designed to played by German children.These high-end boutique boardgames seem more complex and less accessible than monopoly, too.
They are usually less complex rules wise, but more complex in possibility.
Your Power Pill
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote