The Hotness
Games|People|Company
Among the Stars
Targi
Mage Knight: Board Game
Ace of Spies
Mice and Mystics
Eclipse
1984: Animal Farm
Virgin Queen
Lords of Waterdeep
The Big Bang Theory: The Party Game
Pirate Dice: Voyage on the Rolling Seas
Omen: A Reign of War
Eselsbrücke
Village
Descent: Journeys in the Dark (Second Edition)
The New Science
Vegas
Android: Netrunner
Kingdom Builder
A Game of Thrones: The Board Game (Second Edition)
Dominion
The Lord of the Rings: The Card Game
Nefarious
Dungeon Command: Sting of Lolth
Agricola: All Creatures Big and Small
Twilight Struggle
Glory to Rome
1989: Dawn of Freedom
War of the Ring
Quarriors! Quarmageddon
A Few Acres of Snow
K2
Thunder Road
Agricola
7 Wonders
Hawaii
The Convoy
Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization
Hemloch
Gladiatori
Zombicide
Trajan
Tammany Hall
Ora et Labora
The Castles of Burgundy
Arkham Horror
Terrain Game
Dominion: Dark Ages
Dominant Species
Core Worlds

Lacxox.

I have no idea what I'm going to write in this blog. Quite possibly nothing. We'll see.
Recommend
32 
 Thumb up
0.25
 tip
 Thumb up

What makes an Eurogame ’fun’? Exploring fun in Lancaster and Strasbourg (now that I have played the Kennerspiel des Jahres nominees)

Laszlo Molnar
Hungary
Budapest
Hungary
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
No, it’s not another ’why I think the SdJ jury is right’ entry (although I do think they are mostly right). I was sure 7 Wonders was winning the Kennerspiel without knowing the other nominees and it did, rightfully so. I just wanted to learn the other two games as well. I do know and see that one of the most important factors for nominating games is how „fun” these games are. And the jury knows „fun” doesn’t mean simple „optimization”, „combination” and „calculation” for the majority of people, not even to those who have some experience (but still aren’t optimization-crazy geeks).

So what makes Lancaster and Strasbourg fun?

These are both Euros of medium complexity, providing more or less fresh combinations of known mechanisms – actually both have a mechanism at their core that is „like” other games but still is new and something unseen before. I can’t say I’m unhappy to see both of these core mechanisms resemble something Knizian – in case of Lancaster it’s like a mechanism halfway between the bidding for plots in Amun-Re and a worker placement mechanism; in Strasbourg it’s a Ra-ish (but still different) auction mechanism combined with some push your luck(ish) element.

Both games have the fun mechanism of kicking others (others’ knights or others’ guild leaders) out of their space. Doing this is fun while it’s still not the only way to winning; also it’s not the main aim of the game. So it does not make the games cutthroat but stays fun. In Lancaster it’s the Amun Re-ish mechanism: you get kicked out from the action space you took – but you get your knight back so you can place it somewhere else.

Lancaster also has a voting mechanism. Of course it adds some hidden planning and luck to the game – both of them are fun elements but not totally uncontrollable.

Strasbourg has this fun element of drawing cards from your own deck, just to create your bidding piles for the given round. It’s a push your luck element: you can say ’stop’ any time but when you hope you’ll draw a ’1’ or ’2’ you might draw a ’6’ which is good for the current round but not for the next rounds (as you won’t have this ’6’ in your deck for the later rounds). (Still the game offers some wise ways to counter your bad luck; if played wisely, you can put a card like this back in the bottom of the drawing deck.)

Strasbourg also has the fun of hidden aims, missions undertaken in the beginning of the game. Yes, it’s also a luck element but you can decide how much to undertake.

Each of these mechanisms share something in common: they bring some (not uncontrollable) luck to the game which might be too much for some Euro geeks, but actually they add tension and fun to the game.

So both of the games have more than one mechanism that can make games fun. And of course both of them has lot of interaction. Add that both of these have maps – not a really functional map in Lancaster but it’s still better to look at than looking at an Excel sheet; a not really map-like “rectangle” map in Strasbourg. The presence of maps is almost always fun in games but here both of these maps provide interaction which is even more fun.

And while both of these games have a manageable but still present amount of luck involved, these are also rather short – 60 minutes is really not a length where it would be a big problem. What’s more, you can replay the game instantly if you like, or you can choose to play something different for variety.

So why are these mechanisms (and by the result of these mechanisms, the games theirselves) fun? I have no idea, but hidden motivations, kicking each other’s butt in an amusing way, taking risk and keeping a good interaction level seem to be qualities that can make games more fun than constant cube-pushing in games of this (or higher) complexity. Srasbourg and Lancaster prove that even medium-complexity Euros can become fun in the right hands.
Twitter Facebook
10 Comments
Subscribe sub options Mon Jul 11, 2011 4:12 pm
Post Comment
Pe-ads
United Kingdom

mbmbmbmbmb
What makes any game fun? What is fun? devil

Seriously, though, good analysis of these games
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Mon Jul 11, 2011 5:23 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Joel Schuster
Germany
Bretten
Baden-Württemberg
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Since you mention it three times, I have to comment on that. Where exactly are you seeing a considerable element of luck in Lancaster ?

According to the number of players, some certain conquest cards are put out of the game. And then they are shuffled so the order in which they show up is random, alright. The laws are the same in each game, again just the order is random, where here the laws are grouped to make sure some come up early and some late in game. Still, the procedure is rather fixed.

Thats about the only luck I see which is rather minimal and overall negligible. Everything else is in players hand, so its not luck that you are prone to but the decision of opponents (how much to bid, where to put your knights).

I am just curious, because one fellow player also mentioned he regards Lancaster as a game of chance, where I perceive the factor of minimal importance. That said player was actually just arguing because he came in last in that game we played
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Mon Jul 11, 2011 5:23 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Laszlo Molnar
Hungary
Budapest
Hungary
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Oh yes, when we played Lancaster two of the three players who got around 30 points were also complaining quite much. I got about 50 and the winner got around 80 but it wasn't much about luck - he wins most of his games

No, I guess it was a bit exaggerated - I think the only real luck element is the veto edit: voting mechanism in Lancaster and even this can be more or less controlled. Still, you are using your vote resources here and if you fail in second guessing that can be called bad luck. There might also be a little luck in the order of battle cards and also the law cards but I'd rather call these randomizers than serious luck factors. Also as it's a 3+-player game it is not possible to perfectly guess which places your opponents will kick you out from; it's not a big luck factor but still you might waste some important helpers even if you do your best.

Actually, looking at what I wrote above,
Quote:
...Lancaster also has a voting mechanism. Of course it adds some hidden planning and luck to the game – both of them are fun elements but not totally uncontrollable...
...Each of these mechanisms share something in common: they bring some (not uncontrollable) luck to the game...
...both of these games have a manageable but still present amount of luck involved...

I don't even think I exaggerated. Luck is present in Lancaster but it's not a strong luck factor. (I really like both games but I prefer Lancaster out of the two.)
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Edited Mon Jul 11, 2011 8:00 pm
  • Posted Mon Jul 11, 2011 7:16 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Joel Schuster
Germany
Bretten
Baden-Württemberg
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I think it is quite unfortunate that you mention the luck factor thrice in your article, especially given the total length. Because the luck factor is close to non existant. I wouldnt have mentioned that AT ALL. There are many other interesting things in this game that you can talk about, so why put that so much to focus ?

You repeat there is luck. The order of cards, alright, thats what I'd call close to non existant. Veto mechanism ? I dont know of any veto mechanism in Lancaster. You sure you keep the two games apart there ?

There are probably things you may criticise in this game, but not luck. Its what I argued with the fella in my group, he also said the moves and actions of others are luck, but then Chess is one lucky game. Its a mix up of definitons there, at least in my book. Players actions and a real luck factor have precious little to do with each other if you ask me. Lancaster is an interesting game because it leaves alot in players hands and DOES not heavily influence it with random elements.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Mon Jul 11, 2011 7:27 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Laszlo Molnar
Hungary
Budapest
Hungary
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:
I think it is quite unfortunate that you mention the luck factor thrice in your article, especially given the total length.

These are not reviews. I'm not focusing on how balanced these games are, how many ways there might be to win etc. I'm just focusing on the 'fun' elements of the games and I do think games without any luck rarely become really fun.

Umbratus wrote:
Veto mechanism ? I dont know of any veto mechanism in Lancaster. You sure you keep the two games apart there ?

I meant (wanted to write) voting mechanism but one might say it's also a kind of veto mechanism...

Umbratus wrote:
There are probably things you may criticise in this game, but not luck.

Did I criticise luck in the game? I just said it's present in a mostly controllable amount. The problem might be this: many geeks think "luck=bad". I don't think so. The more complex and the longer a game is I prefer less luck in a game but I never said luck is too much in Lancaster. I do think the amount of luck in Lancaster is just about perfect.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Edited Mon Jul 11, 2011 8:42 pm
  • Posted Mon Jul 11, 2011 7:58 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Joel Schuster
Germany
Bretten
Baden-Württemberg
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I see. I did not want to criticise your article in general. I was just concerned that the information regarding the luck factor might be misleading for some readers. Whether games of certain chance are fun or not, is down to individual taste. Some are driven away by too much luck. That being said, amount of luck perceived is again quite individual. So, "fun" is a pretty subjective thing

I do play alot of eurogames where there is very little luck involved and players action do weigh heavy. I also enjoy some certain ameritrash where chance and dice are considerable influences.

On a scale from 1 to 10, Lancaster would score a 2 for me regarding luck factor. It is one among several games I own that I consider having a very little to non existant luck factor.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Edited Mon Jul 11, 2011 10:09 pm
  • Posted Mon Jul 11, 2011 10:02 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Laszlo Molnar
Hungary
Budapest
Hungary
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Umbratus wrote:
I do play alot of eurogames where there is very little luck involved and players action do weigh heavy.

Me too. I consider some of these great games. I wouldn't really say they are really fun games, though (although even among complex Euros I prefer the ones that have some fun elements in them, which does not mean players' actions do not weigh heavily).

Umbratus wrote:
On a scale from 1 to 10, Lancaster would score a 2 for me regarding luck factor. It is one among several games I own that I consider having a very little to non existant luck factor.

It's somewhere between 2 to 3 to me, so we basically agree.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Mon Jul 11, 2011 10:39 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Brett
United States
Oakland
Michigan
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
This was a good read. But I have to say that to me Lancaster is FAR more visually appealing than Strasburg. And I mean far more.


In fact, to me Lancaster is the ultimate in Euro components and a near work of art thumbsup. I am not here to sell the game, but I am very impressed with:


1. A gorgeous game board that is easy to understand
2. Outstanding knight cubes of different sizes
3. Card for both conflicts and laws that are thick cardboard stock
4. A very cool start player token, voting cubes and cards and wooden painted squires.


Honestly, to be able to play a quick game with this much quality is sure to please my gaming group and so grace my table for a long time to come!


Thanks so much to the designer and Queen games.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Tue Jul 12, 2011 2:31 am
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Brett
United States
Oakland
Michigan
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
Umbratus wrote:
On a scale from 1 to 10, Lancaster would score a 2 for me regarding luck factor. It is one among several games I own that I consider having a very little to non existant luck factor.


Ditto.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Tue Jul 12, 2011 2:36 am
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Laszlo Molnar
Hungary
Budapest
Hungary
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
pratchettfan777 wrote:
In fact, to me Lancaster is the ultimate in Euro components and a near work of art thumbsup.

I'm not sure I find it a work of art. But I love the care put into the design of the look - everything is hugely functional, everything can be clearly seen (e.g. the height of the knight tokens helps seeing who is winning the battles; the seemingly unnecessary places of the knight tokens on the board help seeing who has which Knights; the large Start Player token is different enough from the other elements so it's not mistaken with anything else etc.) So I'm also impressed by the look of Lancaster - I'm really impressed how functional it is, even if it comes with a price (this game is not cheap).

(When I wrote "Not a really functional map in Lancaster" I just meant it looks like a map but it could be just some action spaces, there is no connection between cities, you don't walk there, there is no spatial aspect on the map etc. Maybe I should have weitten "not really functioning as a map" instead.)
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Edited Tue Jul 12, 2011 1:36 pm
  • Posted Tue Jul 12, 2011 6:49 am
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote

Subscribe

Categories

Contributors

Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.