-
Who's the more foolish? The fool or fool that plays after the fool?
United States
DURHAM
North Carolina
-
A little story: about a year ago, I went to one of the local stores for board games and I got to play Dungeon Lords. There was one other player new to the game and two veterans. They did a fine job teaching and took care of the details, so I didn't have to worry about that sort of thing. As it happened, I ended up getting a bit too Evil and so I had the Paladin turning up on my door in both years, along with all the strongest adventurers. I had quite a few tunnels and rooms conquered, though I did dispatch all or almost all of the invaders, which was some decent points. Despite my troubles, I ended up second and - the important part - had a blast playing it. I went away considering whether I should get a copy or at least find someone who I saw regularly that had one.
Well, as it happened, another friend of mine got a copy for Christmas and it has been an ongoing quest to get to play it with him sometime. We got over to his house a couple of times, but we either had too many (only plays up to 4) or he wasn't sure enough on the rules to teach it - he did spare us a moment of "teach as we play" (and by moment I mean several hours of confusion and frustration). After the last trip over, I asked to borrow it and I tried it out 2 player with my wife.
BGGers are split on the relative merits of playing Dungeon Lords with less than the full complement of 4. Some just don't like the phantom player, others like the extra tactical consideration playing a card for the ghost gives you. I don't usually mind a phantom as long as the upkeep is not onerous and I'd say that was acceptable for Dungeon Lords. However, it did fall upon me to more fully learn how to play the game and then impart that knowledge to my wife. I like to think I did OK in that regard and apart from a few moments of rule-diving, the play went smoothly - and it was generally simpler than I had envisioned when reading it through. On the other hand, I didn't do as well as in my first game, struggling to retain monsters in my employ (the demon was a poor choice in hindsight), generally not managing my resources as well as I might. Meanwhile, my wife played efficiently and effectively, wiping out the supposedly stronger adventurers of the 2nd year in 2 turns (which would have been 1 if the spell had not forced her dragon to retreat). Furthermore, I did not enjoy the game as much as the first time and that led me to wonder about the environment around the playing of a game and how it affects the enjoyment we get from that game.
In the first game, I was free to focus on my own game with minimal distraction, plus there is the rush of learning the basics of a new game. In the second, I knew the basics but was distracted by the learning of the minutiae (never as fun), the difference of the 2 player game and, while in neither game did I play flawlessly, int he first game it went more gloriously wrong than the rather pitiable way it went awry in the second.
There are lots of reasons why a game might be dismissed or heralded after a first play that have nothing to do with how good a game it actually is. A great game might be ruined by poor explanation and a mediocre one raised up by the camaraderie of the other players. There might also be things that happen in the game that deflate the experience. I've played games of Bang! where a player was dead before they got a turn, but then others where it seemed that they could do no wrong. Imagine that was the first game - which one would be likely to want to play it again?
Another example, one I am sure all readers of this will have experienced: that game of Settlers of Catan where you could not get a break, where you struggled half the game just to build a road, then got enough resources to build that first settlement. Possibly the maddest I have ever gotten playing a game was one such game where I did exactly that. Triumphantly, I placed the settlement, only to be told that another player had just built too close to that spot and it was as such an illegal placement.
Most such bad experiences in games, at least as first time plays leave the player with the desire to never play it again, but if a game is interesting enough, it should give you enough hints that there might be a good game in there, one you might under other circumstances enjoy. In point of fact, my first play of Ticket to Ride was like that. I made my tickets and, at one key moment (or so I thought) blocked out my opponent from a spot and he had to build around. But he had enough time to still get his route done and had built on longer connections, so he won. I remember thinking this was somehow wrong, but the game had been presented to us as the Spiel de Jahres, so maybe I had misjudged it? So I gave it another chance and, while it is not the deepest game, I still find it entertaining once in a while.
I know a lot of gamers on BGG like to feel that they are able to judge many games on their first play and decide whether it is a keeper, worthy of further play. I'd say the majority of the time that is true, there are some very experienced board gamers here. But it is worth considering whether that impression has been tainted by outside factors and the game is truly as bad as you thought it was.
|
|
