The Soap Box

 What this page will be all about...

The phrase soap box began in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, when wooden crates used to transport soap were repurposed as makeshift platforms in public squares. Anyone with something to say could step up, gain a little height, and address whoever was willing to listen. It became a small but enduring symbol of public speech in British and American life.

The Soap Box will be my own version of that tradition. A space for short reflections, arguments, curiosities, and the occasional indulgent ramble. Nothing grand, just a raised platform in the digital square where thoughts can be aired and, perhaps, spark a conversation.

My latest musings will always be at the end of the page.

The Rise and Fall of “Watch it played” version 2.0. 

Anyone familiar with the tabletop gaming hobby will likely know the YouTube channel "Watch It Played." It is the creation of Rodney Smith, who is widely considered one of the finest board game educators in the industry. Having watched his videos for several years, I have always found his videos to be exceptionally helpful.

Around 2020, the channel underwent an important transformation when Rodney began collaborating with Chaz Marler. This partnership, which I think of as "Watch It Played 2.0," brought fresh energy to the platform. By introducing new segments, commentary pieces, and "top ten" lists, the collaboration expanded the channel's portfolio and made visiting the page a regular part of my weekly routine.

However, during the last Christmas period, the tone of the channel began to change. While new content was still being released, I noticed a decline in Rodney Smith’s direct involvement. His appearances became increasingly rare, and he was notably absent from videos featuring the other contributors, Chaz, Paula, Monique, Lavine and Matthew.

Earlier this year, it was officially announced that Rodney and Chaz were ending their collaboration to produce content independently on their own channels. While this news was personally disappointing, it was perhaps not entirely unexpected, as there had been several signs that such a change was imminent. Even so, the exact reasons behind the decision remained difficult to fully comprehend, at least for me.

In the meantime and I am guessing over the same period, Chaz Marler established a new channel, Game Night Picks, introducing fresh collaborators while maintaining his partnership with Paula Demming. The channel's output increased at a remarkable pace. In the meantime, Matthew Jude transitioned to a travel-focused project, reducing his gaming contributions. Simultaneously, Monique and Lavine returned to their own platform, "Before You Play," effectively ending their external collaborations.

While the exact cause of this split was initially unclear, the disruption of such a successful partnership was, as I noted earlier, unexpected. The situation was eventually clarified when Rodney Smith released a video explaining that the collaboration ended due to what he regarded as unethical advertising practices. Specifically, he alleged that Game Night Picks had utilised YouTube’s promotional tools to artificially inflate viewer counts.

From my standpoint, Rodney’s decision to take a firm stance is commendable, particularly given his long-standing friendship with Chaz. Choosing integrity over convenience in the face of such evidence cannot have been easy. Although the long-term consequences for both "Watch It Played" and "Game Night Picks" remain to be seen, I personally find it difficult to continue supporting Chaz Marler’s content.

It is also deeply concerning that YouTube allows its systems to be manipulated in a way that generates revenue from fabricated engagement. This practice undermines the trust of both creators and viewers alike. It is arguably time for Google to review its policies and procedures to ensure its tools are not exploited in this manner. In an era where digital credibility is more important than ever, maintaining user trust should be a primary concern for the platform.

While I do not condone the practices revealed in this instance, it is evident that this was clearly an exploitation of one or more existing loopholes in the YouTube service for financial gain. Such actions create an uneven playing field for other content creators who might be striving to maintain a certain level of integrity. Furthermore, these inflated figures mislead advertisers who might enter agreements based on misleading metrics. Ultimately, this casts a shadow over the authenticity of the reviews and opinions shared on such channels, as they may be seen as being driven solely by an unbridled quest for profit rather than genuine passion for the hobby.

I am not so naive as to suggest that creators should work without compensation. I fully appreciate that a significant investment of time warrants a fair return. However, the pursuit of profit must be conducted ethically and within the bounds of sound professional judgement. The argument that "everyone else is doing it" offers no valid justification for unethical conduct.

It is my hope that some positive change emerges from this situation and that those in a position of authority take the necessary steps to prevent such occurrences in the future. I maintain a belief in the fundamental integrity of most individuals to stand up for what is right, and I hope those who have strayed will find the resolve to rectify their mistakes.

Our hobby is certainly not served by such drama. As I have often noted on this blog, I believe the true value of board gaming lies in sitting around a table with friends and family, strengthening human connections through wholesome play. The online personalities we turn to for guidance should reflect this same ethos. If they profit from their endeavours, it should be a reward well-earned, built upon a genuine community that respects their expertise. Let us hope that once this situation settles, a more transparent and principled environment will remain.

*** LATEST NEWS HERE ***

Beyond the First Roll

I am not a champion board gamer, far from it. Whatever skills I have developed over time, even the smallest improvements, have all been hard earned through repeat plays. So, what I am trying to say here is that if I sit down to play a game I have never played before in my life, the likelihood is that I won’t do well on the first attempt. Oh, I will understand the rules, execute turns of play mostly correctly, but other than that, don't expect me to win off the bat. So, whenever I prepare for a game night, I always keep this in mind. I’m not there for the win but for the experience of playing a new game and for the camaraderie. Yet I feel that people have his expectation about me, that because I tend to know the latest trends, the better games out there, I should somehow be an ace player. Yet I try not to let this weigh me down. Indeed, I would love to win, but I also understand that I do not have the mental acuity to perceive the best path to solve a problem presented by a new board game on the first, second or third instance for that matter. It all takes time and repetition. Take the game Cascadia for instance. This is a medium weight, tile-laying puzzle with a very finite ruleset. The first time I played it, the outcome was a mess. Still I enjoyed the match and on the first opportunity I got my hands on a physical copy and later, when raking in the plays became an issue, bought the digital version of the app. Obviously, when I played the game a number of times, my appreciation of what works and what fails improved and with that my overall win rate. Similarly, and perhaps a further vindication of this trait of mine. I recently sat down to play another puzzler, Verdant. It was my second play. The first time I played at the club I attend, and right on cue I did not quite nail the procedure that time round. Yet for my second outing I felt that I understood the mechanism and stood a chance to win, except that I did not. In the game of Verdant, successful play hinges upon the strategic alignment of multiple components, plant type, room type, lighting conditions, and boost tokens. These elements must be matched to maximize scoring. Furthermore, the scoring mechanism incorporates subtle yet engaging complexities such as the use of 'Thumbs up' tokens which provide the player with supplementary actions when they are available for expenditure. While the game's turn structure is fundamentally straightforward, it is often the case that grasping the optimal pathways to accruing points necessitates several playthroughs. For players who do not inherently stumble upon winning strategies, a dedicated period of learning and iterative refinement is required to master the game. When engaging with Verdant, while the immediate temptation might be to give priority to synergies based purely on room or plant colour, you must not overlook the importance of the point value of the chosen plants. You need to select cards with a higher 'Verdancy score'. These higher value plants, while typically more challenging to complete, are crucial for guaranteeing a substantial final tally. Conversely, while the room tokens which confer scoring boosts and which a player might accumulate in number may appear significant, they seldom warrant a primary strategy focused solely on their variety and collection. Consequently, the selection of plants with a high Verdancy score is key with the consideration of colour synergy being the next most important factor. To successfully incorporate the high Verdancy cards, one must ensure their presence is effectively realised within the final tableau. Beyond the fundamental requirement of placement based on lighting conditions. For example, a shade loving plant must be positioned within a room exhibiting that characteristic. Matching the plant with the room's colour is also a sound strategy. For every plant whose colour aligns with its corresponding room, an additional one point will be accrued at the end of the game, and this value doubles if a matching colour token is also placed in the same room. However, it remains crucial not to become overly fixated on the tokens; the primary objective must remain the plant's Verdancy score. I would like to now turn to the critical process of achieving Verdancy for viable plants, preceding the discussion of potting and pot scores. Verdancy is earned when a plant or room is placed in your tableau and matches a quality displayed by its adjacent cards. For instance, if a player places a sun loving plant next to a sunny room of the same colour, they will earn one Verdancy point for the lighting condition and a second for the colour match. If that card subsequently aligns with other eligible qualities in orthogonally adjacent cards, further Verdancy is gained, one point per matched quality. This mechanism is vital because players must accumulate Verdancy points equal to the value shown on the plant cards they play. Once this illustrated tally is reached, the plant can then be 'potted'. The plant's potted score is the ultimate goal here, in addition to the points derived from the pot itself. Pots in Verdant are available in four types. The most valuable pot will yield three (3) points at the close of the game, followed by pots worth two (2) and one (1) point. At the lower end are the zero point pots, which are still necessary to secure a plant’s potting score but do not contribute extra points. Consequently, there is a clear advantage in being among the first to pot plants as this will lead to a better return at the conclusion of the game. Still, potting early should not be done at the expense of securing those higher scoring plants. A note now concerns the 'Thumbs up' tokens that players may earn during gameplay. These constitute very powerful but intentionally limited tools. A player is restricted to storing only five of these tokens concurrently with any surplus automatically forfeited at the conclusion of their turn. Their significance stems from their utility in two key areas. First, they permit manipulation of the market from which cards and tokens are acquired, and secondly they allow players to purchase Verdancy points for their plants. From practical experience, these tactical benefits prove most significant towards the mid to late stages of the game. Manipulating the market can be an extremely powerful tactic if deployed judiciously. For instance, if a player is unable to identify a beneficial selection from the current market for their tableau of cards, resetting the market to introduce fresh cards may be advantageous. Conversely, if a player identifies a scenario that could substantially boost an opponent’s layout on their ensuing turn, manipulating the market may serve to impede that progression. However, given the limited number of turns, Resetting a market space to unilaterally affect an opponent might be considered inefficient when viewing the overarching strategy. The market is the ultimate source of variability in the game, being the location from which players acquire their cards and tokens. It is structured in three rows, each containing four items, a top row of room cards, a middle row of tokens, and a bottom row of plant cards. During a player's turn, they are permitted to select two items, one token and one card. A standard constraint is that both selected items must originate from the same column. Upon selecting this combination, the player is then required to place a 'Thumbs up' token on the remaining card in that column. This is the mechanism by which 'Thumbs up' tokens enter the market. Subsequent players may then collect cards featuring these 'Thumbs up' tokens and place them in their reserve. Furthermore, and this is a key point, 'Thumbs up' tokens can waive the standard "take your cards from one column restriction" at the cost of two such tokens. This illustrates the power of these tokens, particularly when working towards completing the tableau late in the game. Verdant employs one final scoring mechanism which resides in global objectives available to all players. These should not be obsessed about should you choose to play with them, but they warrant being kept in mind should an opportunity arise to accrue additional points through their completion. It is now evident that despite the various mechanisms outlined, success in Verdant fundamentally rests on securing and completing, or potting, high scoring plant cards. While ancillary scoring mechanisms are desirable, they should not be pursued at the expense of the main objective of acquiring the better plant cards. Secondary objectives, such as favouring specific colours to achieve additional bonuses, should only be pursued once the primary objective is properly addressed. Failure to prioritise the main goal will likely lead to a desperate scramble for minor points which will not typically culminate in victory. This game analysis is particularly important when considering a player's first-time success rate in any board game. There are players who possess a game-oriented mindset, allowing them to instantly grasp a game's core mechanisms. This intuition may stem from the game fitting an existing model they might have encountered, or their ability to intuitively discern a path to victory from first principles. Such individuals are rare. For most players, mastering the game requires practical experience, acceptance of mistakes, incremental improvements to play style, and sustained focus. Furthermore, from personal experience, It is not always simple to achieve optimal gameplay focus. The individual responsible for explaining the rules or preparing the session faces a demanding situation. When acting as the rules authority, one's attention is primarily consumed by ensuring that all participants understand the rules correctly. There is no room for improvisation. An unnoticed mistake perpetuated during a game can skew outcomes for everyone involved in subsequent plays. Serving as the rules police can be mentally exhausting. On a personal level, I can attest to the marked difference in my performance when I am not responsible for teaching the game. Admittedly, this requires playing a game that genuinely resonates with me, otherwise my concentration wanes. However, when circumstances align, and I play a favoured game without expending mental cycles on teaching or correcting others, my performance improves, and my final rankings are typically respectable, often securing second and third places. Despite this, I cannot envision abandoning my self-imposed mission to share new board games with others. I find the process of introducing players to novel games deeply satisfying. This conviction provides me with the motivation to organise and teach new board games, notwithstanding my generally poor winning record on initial attempts. Furthermore, my enthusiasm extends beyond that. I enjoy discovering new games, investigating their mechanics, and developing a deep comprehension of what makes a game successful when it employs only a finite number of cards and tokens. While I appreciate large box games with all their components, boards, and paraphernalia, it is the small, concise, and minimalist masterpieces that truly captivate me. I possess several titles in my collection that exemplify this. I refer to Reiner Knizia's Battleline and Lost Cities, Thomas Leeman's “Res Arcana”, Hanamikoji, Love Letter, Hive, and Quarto. All are exceptionally tight games with minimal components yet offer good gameplay depth. In my assessment, they are standard-bearers of minimalistic design, sacrificing nothing of the rich experience when one engages with them fully. I cherish board games because I perceive in them a profound expression of human reasoning. I observe minds making intriguing conceptual leaps to table something unique or fresh. This leap may be wholly abstract in nature, or it may be an attempt to model a real-world problem in streamlined, simplified terms. When any problem is broken down to its essential components, we may uncover a means to solve it. Alternatively, by exposing our thinking to diverse gaming mechanisms, we can learn to view our world through a different problem-solving lens. Mental agility tends to diminish with age; however, research indicates that maintaining a healthy lifestyle and finding opportunities to exercise one’s mental abilities may help slow cognitive decline in later years. Of course, individuals differ, and factors such as diet, regular physical activity, and genetics all influence whether cognitive decline occurs sooner or later in life. Nevertheless, all things being equal, participation in board games can serve as a useful means of supporting healthier, more graceful ageing, while helping to stem mental deterioration Ultimately, the essence is never about winning, enticing as victory may be. Board games offer a venue for human expression, exploration, socialisation, and learning. They breathe life into our routine methods. They strip away our illusory virtual world of screens and algorithms, leaving only the human mind and a problem requiring solution. The challenge lies in embracing each instance as an opportunity to learn, grow, and improve, to always seek the core knowledge in any outcome, a moment of wisdom in every interaction. Winning then becomes merely a possibility within a dichotomous construct within a far more intricate end game.

Links

• You may get more information on Verdant on Boardgamegeek (https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/334065/verdant )

• Verdant is currently available at Gamesplus Malta ( https://gamesplusmalta.com/product/verdant-board-game/ )

Other titles mentioned ...

• Res Arcana - https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/262712/res-arcana
• Hanamikoji - https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/158600/hanamikoji
• Lost Cities -  https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/50/lost-cities
• Battle Line: Medieval - https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/297985/battle-line-medieval
• Love Letter - https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/129622/love-letter
• Hive - https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/2655/hive
• Quarto - https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/681/quarto