Top 10 most popular games played in Q1 2022

 This is a quick review of the most popular games, with the most recorded plays on BoardGameGeek during the first three months of 2022. The data itself is interesting in that it seems to highlight the ongoing popularity of certain board games that have been around for a few years now. In order to come up with the top 10 later in this article I have limited myself to the top 20 played games during the months of January, February and March.

Once I pooled this information, I next sorted each game by frequency, selecting only those that made the top 20 in all of the three months analysed. This gave me a total of 14 titles which I tabulated. Next I took note of the positions they occupied each time they featured in order to rank them better. The resulting table (towards the end of this blog) was an interesting mix of new and old titles. 

Brief Game Reviews

#14 Starting off at number 14 we have Ark Nova. The game is fairly new, released in 2021 and scoring 8.7 on BoardGameGeek. The theme feels quaint, you’re managing a zoo with the objective of owning the most grand and successful establishment. The design looks lovely and the gameplay interesting. I will admit that the theme would not be something I would look at, but this game really looks intriguing. One thing is for sure, it is definitely garnering the attention of the board gaming community and, I feel, is new title to look out for as the year progresses. 

#13 The next title at number 13 in the BoardGameGeek list of most played games, is Magic the Gathering. Magic The Gathering (MTG) is a collectable card game originally designed by Richard Garfield in 1993, this game will be a whopping 30 years old next year and it’s still going strong. While many will argue that you need a bankroll if you intend to play this game competitively, it still somehow manages to reel in new players. It is these players who in turn keep this Collectable Card Game afloat, with its publishers Wizards of the Coasts, in turn churning out new sets and expansions on a regular basis. A quick check confirmed that the latest core set edition is currently the twenty-first which was published in 2021. As an aside, the first time I got onto the “Magic” bandwagon mostly out of curiosity, was way back during the seventh edition, released in 2001. Following that I bought some boosters as well as a  fire-themed deck from the Champions of Kamigawa expansion which was released in 2004.  After another long hiatus, I then picked up more duelling decks and boosters from the fifteenth Edition released in 2016. Since then, I must admit, that I have cooled down considerably when it comes to MTG and apart from playing a few dozen games on the MTG Arena platform, my live play has since become non-existent. In truth, I nowadays stay away completely from CCGs (Collectable Card Games) as I find these too demanding in terms of the time and money you need to invest in order to remain competitive. 

#12 Next one up, at number 12, is Spirit Island. This game by board game designer R. Eric Reuss and published in 2017 is doing quite well and is considered a solid game, scoring 8.4 on BoardGameGeek. Spirit Island is cooperative but definitely not one of the lighter titles out there. Still if you are keen on co-op and have several sessions of Pandemic under your belt, you should definitely be giving this one a try.

#11 I was quite frankly, amused and pleasantly surprised to find Splendor creeping up into this list at number 11. This game by game designer Marc Andre, originally published in 2014 is still doing quite well, eight years down the line. This is one of my all-time favourite games and one which is very easy to get to the table and introduce to new players. Splendor has sold over 200,000 copies globally.

The Top 10 Games

So here we are with the top 10 games, most played games, for the first quarter of 2022. I will go through the titles in a countdown fashion, starting with a review of the number ten title and then on upwards to the number one game on the list.  

#10 Gloomhaven is an episodic, campaign-type, roleplaying game with some seriously good production values. Designed by Isaac Childres and published in 2017, it is considered one of the best RPG’-style dungeon crawlers in a box. A co-op game at heart, this intriguing game comes in a monumental box with tonnes of content. It will require the biggest table or surface you can throw at it...and more important a gaming group committed to play through the various campaign scenarios with you. Here I would like to add that in 2021 the same designer came up with a lighter prequel of sorts called Gloomhaven: Jaws of the Lion. It is an interesting, standalone experience which allows casual players the opportunity to experience Gloomhaven without the overheads and bulk of the original game. I understand that Gloomhaven ticks all the right boxes but I was quite intrigued that this sequel did not feature higher up in the BoardGameGeek most played lists. This in view of the fact that Jaws of the Lion is currently ranked fifth in their overall ranking of games, with Gloomhaven, notably (and with reason) taking top honours at number one.

#09 7 Wonders Architects (2021) is a fairly new game derived from the original 7 Wonders. Many consider this iteration as a “light” version of the original game and, from what I have seen and read, I tend to agree. Regardless, it comes with great design values and new players appear to be loving it. It is also the recipient of the 2022 As d'Or - Jeu de l'Année, so definitely noteworthy. 

#08 7 Wonders Duel is another 7 Wonders spinoff originally published in 2015. This seven-year-old game is a two-player variation of the original,  which takes a fraction of the space of its older brother. It packs a satisfying, meaty and involving game that goes down well with fans of strategic games. Personally I would like to play it a bit more often as that is the only way to fully appreciate the beauty of this modern classic.

#07 Lost Ruins of Arnak is one of the games on my wish list. This game was released in 2020 so that it will be one of those games which will be forever linked to the COVID pandemic. It scores a solid 8.1 on BoardGameGeek  and offers a combination of gaming mechanisms I love, such as deck building, drafting and worker placement. It’s not too complex to teach, as can be attested by the video review by Tom Vassel of the Dice Tower. The deck building aspect is quite straightforward and, while the number of decisions demanded appears to be limited, the board and player interactions result in an involved and satisfying experience overall. If you would like a better idea of how this game pans out, try watching a playthrough on Youtube. 

#06 Terraforming Mars, by designer Jacob Fryxelius and published in 2016 is enjoying a resurgence of sorts thanks mostly to the 2021 followup, Ares Expedition. In this game players take the role of rival corporations all seeking to make Mars habitable while reel in on the commercial success of their venture. Personally, while I did buy the digital adaptation for PC, I am still undecided as to whether this should be part of my physical board game collection. Ares Expedition, which came out in 2021 appears to be a tighter and more streamlined adaptation, with an easier ruleset than this original work. However, Terraforming Mars still scores a solid 8.4 on BoardGameGeek

#05 & #04 The Crew: Quest for planet nine and The Crew: Mission deep sea, both by designer Thomas Sing, appear to be enjoying a steady popularity as the first quarter of 2022 comes to a close. The game fits what is essentially a trick-taking card game, into a thematic adventure, the former in space and the latter deep under the sea. Both are cooperative-style card games spanning several scenarios straight out of the box. In both games, players get to play a number of missions towards their final game objective. Still, I am a bit wary of the multi-mission structure, which is why I haven’t personally committed to buying either of these two very popular titles. The only aspect that might swing me the other way and actually lead me to buying these titles, is that they aren’t particularly expensive in addition to not taking up a lot of room on the gaming table. 

#03 Wingspan, by game designer Elisabeth Hargrave, has been killing it for the past three years now, its popularity and position on the list proves it. In this visually stunning game, players are bird enthusiasts trying their best to attract birds to their wildlife preserves. Two expansions have already been released for this game, one centred around European birds and the others around Oceania. Rated an 8.1 on BoardGameGeek, Wingspan is a deep game offering many choices during the course of a game. Still it’s easy to teach and thoroughly engaging. According to Stonemeier games, Wingspan has sold over 750,00 copies globally since 2019.

#02 Azul is one of those games you bring out when you want something that’s enjoyable, appealing and easy to teach and get started. I have to admit that I gave this one the slip on account of encountering and buying its successor Azul: Stained Glass of Sintra which came with a few improvements over  the original game. Since then various other stand-alone follow-ups to Azul made it to the market, but none seem to have enjoyed the popularity or the staying power of the original. Azul has sold over two million copies since it was first published.

#01 Marvel Champions: The Card Game, by Game Designer Michael Biggs and published in 2019, is currently enjoying a wave of popularity, piggy-backing on the success of Marvel themed movies and associated merchandise. Many are touting it as a sleek and enjoyable cooperative card game, where players take on the personas of their favourite superheroes to defeat infamous villains and earn victory.  

So that’s the top 10 list of the most played board games, as compiled by Board Game Geek. It’s always interesting to see what games are being played and how popular they remain over time. Some games make a big splash when they first come out and then fizzle out within a few months to a year. The above games have all shown some serious resilience in their own right, earning their place in the above list.

If  you have any questions about any of the above games, please do not hesitate to get in touch and I will try to get back to you as soon as I can.

Board Games based on established or popular IPs

When designing new games, themes are always at the fore of a game designer’s mind. Designers may have a brilliant set of game mechanisms, perhaps backed by sound mathematical or logical principles, but if they get the theme wrong, the game could potentially suffer. From my experience with this hobby, there is seldom, however, a good or bad theme per se, but rather a well-timed or badly timed one.

I am here referring to themes which are in their turn derived from established intellectual properties or IPs. Timing in this sense, is more about timing the release of such games when their IP is enjoying highest visibility. This could be following the release of a related movie or the publication of a book or an anniversary related to that same IP.

To further elaborate I will use a board game by a renowned game designer, Reiner Knizia. Knizia is an icon in the industry and a PhD in mathematics. When he talks about games or writes about them, people usually listen. Knizia is a German game designer born in 1957, who has designed several games to date, as well as published books on card and dice games. If you want to have a taste of his game designs I have included two book titles at the end of this blog. In 2000 he published what was to become his best selling game, Lord of the Rings (LOTR), the board game. 

The game itself has some very interesting game mechanisms such as the corruption track where the heroes, in this case the hobbits of the shire, battle the dark lord Sauron through four distinct scenarios, with the sole objective of destroying the one ring. The track itself is very visual with, on the one hand, the “light” side where the hobbits strive to remain, and a “dark” side where Sauron’s ominous tower of Barad-Dur stands at the start of a game. Throughout the course of the various scenes, the hobbits will progress towards or away from the dark side. Likewise the tower will progress towards or away from the hobbits. If  at any time the two meet then the hobbits fail in their quest and the game is lost. 

This fascinating board game also pre-dates the popular board game Pandemic by 8 years, as well as other similar co-op games.  It was among the first board games to introduce cooperative play in a modern game format. The hobbits (albeit the players) win or lose together, depending on whether the ring bearer completes his ultimate quest or not. 

Yet while the chosen IP was an established one, which went down well with fans of JRR Tolkien, what really brought the game to the attention of mainstream gamers must have been its close proximity with the release of the first instalment of Peter Jackson's LOTR magnum opus. In fact Jackson had started filming all three LOTR movies in New Zealand precisely  between 1999 and 2000, with the first instalment of the trilogy (The Fellowship of the Ring) subsequently released in 2001. Knizia, in this sense, can be said to have pre-empted the flood of other LOTR themed games which followed, by placing his creation first out of the gates.

Seen from the standpoint of 2022, as I write this blog, cooperative games have since advanced in leaps and bounds. Pandemic, for instance, introduced a dynamicity that you will not find in Knizia’s earlier game. It caters for diverse starting configurations, through randomly assigning the positions of the various starting pieces. Yet these modern co-op games, as thematic as they may be considered, do not require to follow a fixed plot, in a specific sequential, episodic order. This was the brilliance of Knizia’s creation; he translated the book’s original plot into a sequence of events (or scenarios)  whose order never changes. To the extent that this adopted stratagem aligns with the novel, it also makes learning how to play LOTR sensibly more challenging than, say, playing Pandemic or other modern co-op games.

Timing games to coincide with the release, or popularity, of movies linked to specific IPs is a rather common tactic in marketing board games. One other such game that comes to mind is Marvel Splendor.

Marvel Splendor is a reskinning of an earlier game called simply Splendor, released in 2014 and designed by Marc Andre. The original Splendor (2014) offers a simple resource building mechanism, which starts off with a finite resource of gem tokens, which players need to secure in order to buy increasingly valuable cards. The more valuable cards are themselves worth victory points, with the game’s objective being to be the first to score 15 points before all other players. These same concepts and goals lay at the heart of Marvel Splendor, albeit with a few twists. The gems are now “infinity stones” and the first player to secure one of each type of stone (represented through captured cards) wins the “infinity gauntlet” and the game. The game also includes a special 3-point award token, that moves to the player who would currently have the most Avengers among his or her claimed deck of cards. 

Basically Marvel Splendor is just Splendor with some very unique Marvel related artwork, and actually proved the critics right when they say that Splendor does not have much of a well articulated theme. Mind you, the game is good, but the theme employed fits loosely over the core game mechanisms, making it rather simple to switch themes as in this case. 

I’d like to end this review of board games, based on established IPs, by going over games that were built around the Dune saga by Frank Herbert. One can say that Dune is to Sci-Fi what LOTR is to fantasy. The 1984 movie rendition by David Lynch was received poorly in its time, but having said that, the movie itself was a product of its time. I will not go into what were its failing points, nor its merits, it’s beside the point in this instance. What that movie did do was bring the original book to the fore, as it were. Having said that, back in 1979 Avalon Hill published what I believe to be the first Dune-based board game. Closer to Lynch’s version of Dune, Avalon Hill then published a second edition of this game as well as two expansions. The game itself was a lengthy affair but one cherished by board game aficionados. For several years the board game went out of print right up until 2019 when a new publisher, Gale Force 9, once again published the game while tweaking the original ruleset. Once again this IP-based reprint was published close to the release of a related movie, in this instance Denis Villeneuve’s interpretation which has since received rave reviews as well as won 6 oscars (Best Score, Visual Effects, Cinematography, Production Design and Film Editing). As might be imagined, other publishers and game designers were equally quick to come up with Dune-based titles with two of the more interesting being Dune Imperium and Dune: a Game of Conquest and Diplomacy. 

Dune Imperium, which I happen to own, is a product of modern board game design, incorporating diverse gaming mechanisms which have found favour among board game enthusiasts. This version in fact includes deck building, worker placement and resource management. The design is strongly influenced from the movie visuals and the characters in-game are artistic renditions of the actual actors themselves, including Timothy Chalamat (Paul Atreides), Oscar Isaac (Leto Atreides), Jason Mamoa (Duncan Idaho) and others. The success of this game, its theming and timing can be appreciated by the fact that it is currently ranked 15th on BoardGameGeek. While the game itself is unquestionably interesting, the question beckons, would it be as successful if the movie hadn’t been made? Would it have been published at all? 

In truth this synergy between IPs and board games has existed for as long as modern board games have been published. While the end products may not always be memorable or long lived, the fact remains that a subsection of the board game industry does tend to  lean on the popularity of established IPs to sell their games. 

I would like to leave you with a couple of questions. The first must be, how important is theme for you when you decide to purchase a game? Also, do you like games that rely on established IPs for their core theme? Feel free to drop me a few lines, I would like to hear your take on the matter.

Reference and Links

Books by Reiner Knizia

Dice Games Properly Explained (ISBN 978-0-9731052-1-6)

New Tactical Games with Dice and Cards  (ISBN 978-0-9936880-1-0)

The Right Game for the Right Crowd

Ever got hyped about a game, following an online review perhaps, bought it and then felt totally at a loss when you table the game to dismal feedback from your fellow gamers? If this has happened to you, you are not alone. The truth of the matter is that with the huge diversity of board games available on the market, matching the right game to the right crowd can be difficult.

Let us say you want to establish what might work best with your chosen crowd, first you need to take your own board game collection into consideration. For starters you need to establish the player counts catered for by your various games. If, for instance, most of your games cater for 2 to 4 players, then you don’t really have any party games to speak of. With player counts ironed out, you next need to determine the type of games you have in your collection by identifying their key gaming mechanism. 

Most modern games exhibit one or more gaming mechanisms at their core but they will always have one overarching mechanism that dominates. For instance, games like Carcassonne are principally “tile laying” in nature but then Carcassonne also happens to be a “worker placement” game, where you use meeples to lay claim to certain features on the board and earn points. Other games like the classic Risk or Kingdom Builder, are more focused on territory or area control. These are but two examples but there are obviously much more out there. Each mechanism will add or, in some cases detract, from the spread of possible choices available to a player. In many ways the complexity of a game can be considered to be directly related to the number of available decisions or choices throughout. 

Another aspect you may need to consider while preparing for a gaming session, is whether your crowd is highly competitive, enjoying cutthroat action while playing board games, or whether they are more drawn to non-confrontational styles of gaming. If the latter is the case, then games following a “last man standing” model should be avoided. Furthermore euro-style games such as Tokaido, Lords of Waterdeep and the various Pandemic-style, cooperative games, will prove definitely more popular. 

If you don’t have the time to quiz your fellow gamers in advance, you would be best served by having a diverse library of games spanning as many mechanisms as possible. This would obviously allow you to adjust your offering based on who you will be hosting during your gaming session. However given that you cannot own all the of games in existence, you need to choose your games carefully. Above all you need some specific criteria that will allow you to choose your games smartly. For this reason, I am suggesting that you should have a spread of games that cater for at least the following criteria:-

1. Game duration - Here  I advise having two types of games. Short, interactive games with a duration anywhere between 15-20 to 45 minutes and medium duration games with play times ranging anywhere from 60-90 to 180 minutes. Personally, I think that you should refrain from acquiring games with longer play durations or those which need to be played over several sessions. Unless you can get a game group to commit to regular sessions, long multi-session games will end up become a waste of space in your collection. Another aspect you need to take seriously into account is how familiar your gaming group happens to be with a particular game. It stands to reason that if a game is brand new, players will need to first digest the rules and then learn to apply them during the course of a game. Even a derivative game, based on an established and previously played game, will have rule variations that will need to be learnt. For this reason, if you intend to bring a new game to the table which says, on the box, that it can be played in 45 minutes, make sure you add on at least another 30-45 minutes to the overall game time.

2. Rulebook Complexity - You should have in your collection, games which have terse, one to four page rulesets, in addition to games with more elaborate (though hopefully easy to understand) rulebooks. The former, especially if they also happen to have short to medium game durations of say up to 45 minutes max, would make for excellent ice breakers. In some instances these will be the games you will play exclusively, especially if your fellow gamers tend to be casual players who aren’t into playing longer games.

3. Cutthroat versus Euro-style games - Games can be divided between what I call cutthroat games and euro-style games. Cutthroat games are usually of a type where, if more than two players are involved, players will be gradually eliminated from play before the end of the game. We can also call this kind of game the “last man standing” type, since at the end of the game, the sole surviving player is crowned the winner. Euro-style games on the other hand tend to focus on point scoring, allowing all players to remain in play till the very last round. You will here appreciate that you have to carefully gauge whether your gaming group prefers old school cutthroat games (Monopoly comes to mind), or whether they tend to prefer player engagement and staying in play till the end. Either way, it would be best if you have both types represented in your collection.

4. Competitive versus Cooperative games - This is another distinction which you should like to have represented in your collection. One may argue that all games are intrinsically competitive, it is what encourages players to even learn how to play them in the first place. Yet some modern euro games cater for cooperative play, where players can actually work as a team to overcome obstacles set in place through clever game mechanisms. A flag bearer of this genre is Pandemic, this game is in fact considered the quintessential cooperative game. Yet there are other cooperative games other than Pandemic and I am sure you will find several. For example Zombicide by CMON games comes to mind.

When it comes to theming in board games, matters get a bit more complicated. To begin with, themes in board games are neverending. You will find games which focus on exploring reality, some that have strong historic resonance, others still, that draw their inspiration from sci-fi, steampunk or fantasy settings. Whether or not a theme will work with a play group will depend significantly on individual tastes. If your game group is made up of folk who just love fantasy, a D&D or Lord of the Rings themed board game will most likely be a hit. If on the other hand, your game group isn’t too keen on war themed games or on history in general, bringing games to the table like Brass Birmingham or Axis & Allies will not go down well. As a general rule of thumb, simpler, elegant or well presented games are easier to bring to the table than, say, those with complex designs that utilise a plethora of tokens or come with some heavy number crunching as part of their design. 

I think at this point, I have covered most of the matters you would need to consider, to make sure that you bring the right games to the table. However I have left one final matter till the very end. This will make or break any gaming session, since it will more certainly impact the games you will actually play. I am here talking about available time.

If you are planning a board game session, make sure you know exactly how much time you have to play a particular game. Are all your fellow gamers aware of the duration and can they stay on till the end of a game? These are important questions because no one likes seeing a perfectly good game break up on account of one or two killjoys, who were either reluctant to commit in the first place, or who suddenly notice (in the thick of things) that they happen to have other commitments to tend to. 

If you plan to make an evening of it, make sure you have ample time for food consumption, preparing the gaming area, bringing the board game/s out and actually playing the game. If this means meeting up early to get the food over and done with, make sure that all are on board with the idea. It also helps if you have one or two guests who are willing to help you set up the game as this will greatly reduce preparations allowing for more gaming time in the long run.

I sincerely hope that this little exposition has offered you a good insight into the hobby, especially if you happen to love board games and sharing them with family and friends. If there are any questions you might have and wish to ask, please feel free to get in touch and I will gladly try my best to answer them for you. Until my next blog, have fun playing board games! 

Asynchronous play in Board Gaming

 It is fair to say that nowadays emails have become more a matter of sending work-related messages and documents than, for example, social messages to friends, family, and acquaintances. This is the reality of modern internet consumption, based on fast-paced messaging and inanely brief video interactions. This can be plainly attested by the popularity of instant messaging services such as WhatsApp and Facebook Messenger, as well as the addictively omnipresent TikTok. TikTok has in fact become so successful in what it does, that other services such as Instagram have incorporated elements of this video messaging format into their own platform.

 

Yet I am not here to talk about TikTok or instant messaging but to focus on an aspect of asynchronous gaming that has, to an extent, died out. Asynchronous gaming here refers to gaming conducted over a span of time and not necessarily contiguously. A good example would be the chess-by-mail that eventually gave rise to chess-by-email. In this manner of interaction, player ‘A’ has his or her turn and then emails the details of that turn to player ‘B.’ Player ‘B’ will then review the actions carried out by player ‘A’, perform his or her turn of play and send the details back to that player. The cycle is then repeated, over several rounds till the game is concluded.

There appears to be a debate when it comes to the definitions here. So to clarify my position on the matter I will define my understanding of the terms. Whenever I use the term Synchronous, I mean in Real Time. To further elaborate, all players engaged in synchronous play may share the same physical space and play immediately as soon as their opponent completes their turn. I qualified “may” share space because it is possible to play synchronously but still not share the same space as in the case of digital adaptations of Board games. This (synchronous) as opposed to asynchronous play, were Game Time is dilated over both physical space (players can not be sharing the same space or even be at the same location) nor do they participate immediately when their turn is up. Basically in the latter method, players may choose when and where to play their turn and when to communicate the outcome of their turn to their opponents.

 

As can be imagined, this method of play can last a long time. If you were to factor in the speed of traditional mail and further delays till either player sat down to play, document, and mail back their turn, it is not surprising that games lasted months if not years. The introduction of email did speed up the process making the entire game last far less than its snail-mail counterpart. Still, these games still tended to last a significant amount of time when compared to live, synchronous play.

 

In games such as Chess, asynchronous play via mail worked brilliantly, as it allowed either player to assess all potential moves and to consider diverse options in more detail. It was also, invariably, the product of its time. In today’s world where chess analytics have been passed on to ingenious computer programs powered by increasingly powerful computer hardware, asynchronous play does not make any sense. Agreed that players can agree not to use computer assistance to evaluate their positions, but it would all boil down to a tacit or formal agreement between participants.

 

So, while personally I would be inclined to write-off chess as a contender for asynchronous email-based gameplay, other more intricate boardgames have lent themselves to this model of play over the past two years. No need to recapitulate how universally felt the COVID-19 pandemic was over the past couple of years. Its effects are still being felt today as we speak. Still, the pandemic had the added effect of pushing board game enthusiasts online, seeking to marry virtual presence, emails, and other messaging options to fill the void left by the months of isolation and social distancing.

 

As can be imagined, there are still a substantial number of modern games which cannot truly be played asynchronously since they envisage some form of simultaneous actions. There are, on the other hand, those which follow the usual to-and-fro cadence which can make asynchronous play work. One game that comes to mind is Onitama. This is a two-player, chess-like game (played in a fraction of the time) that involves a rotating set of common moves shared by both players. 

Regardless of whether one decides to indulge in asynchronous play using some form of electronic messaging medium or not, there is still a strong commitment towards the method that needs to be embraced by all participants. Let us say just for arguments sake that you decide to play a game using this method, you would need to subscribe to the following: -

 

1.      It is likely that you would need a physical copy of the board game as this will allow you to play through each turn and visualize the steps that need to be taken.

2.      You would need a permanent space where to layout the board, somewhere where it cannot be knocked over or disturbed in between turns.

3.      Alternatively, should you not have the space, you would need to find a means to record the board game state in between turns, for instance by capturing a good image of the game state before putting it away.

4.      More importantly, you need to commit time to play your turn, record it in a clear manner and pass on the results of your turn to your opponent through the chosen electronic medium.

 

Of the points noted above, “4” is perhaps the most challenging. It implies that you are committed to respond to your opponent’s turn, say within a specified amount of time. If you fail to respond, this will mean that the game could be stalled, and this could lead to an eventual disinterest in playing further. The success of, or failure, of any asynchronous play depends strongly on the commitment of all players concerned.

 

Other games which have an element of imperfect information, such as games that involve the use of shuffled decks of cards, could in principle be played asynchronously but they would require an online platform to act as arbiter to each turn, while performing all the turn upkeep to keep the game flowing. One such online platform which shone throughout the various lockdowns is Board Game Arena. This gaming platform offers a plethora of boardgames that can be played following the asynchronous model. It also goes as far as to email notifications to players when their turn comes up. Players can then just log in, take their turn and log off to continue with their day-to-day activities. Again, even in this instance, point “4” mentioned earlier would still be very important, even if communication between players is automated by the platform. To use Board Game Arena, especially when it comes to premium games, it is sufficient for one player to own the game, other players can just join a session created by the owner and play. Prices to own a game on BGA are low and nowhere near the actual price tags of the physical boxes. This makes gaming on this platform incredibly attractive for board game hobbyists.

 

So, what does this tell us about the present and future of board games played using this asynchronous model? My take is that, while there appears to be a niche of interested players who might consider the proposition, it all boils down to whether more palatable or synchronous play is readily available. Personally, if I had the choice, I would prefer to indulge in synchronous play, but the truth is that finding time for such engagements can be difficult. The Internet has come a long way towards filling the gaps and providing virtual venues for asynchronous play but ultimately the longevity of this model of play still depends strongly on the commitment of those involved.

 

Some further reading and links

• A shortlist of android games that can be played asynchronously. https://www.slant.co/topics/2005/~best-asynchronous-online-multiplayer-games-on-android
• The Board Game Arena Website https://en.boardgamearena.com/
• A A link to the Board Game Geek listing for Onitama, a game mentioned in this article. https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/160477/onitama

 

 

 

 

 

Worker Placement Games

Worker placement refers to a game mechanism whereby a player places a worker token, or meeple as they are also referred to, onto a specific area on a gaming board, in order to activate an action present on the Board. There have been several variations on this concept, and I happen to own a few games which embrace this game mechanism.

The first game that comes to mind is also one of my favourites. The game is Lords of Waterdeep, a game imbued with D&D theming, though I feel that the mechanism could be used with any theme. The game revolves around players taking on “quests,” drawing “intrigue” cards from a specialized deck and acquiring followers in order to complete quests. The followers, represented in the game by wooden cubes, symbolize any one of four factions including clerics (white), warriors(orange), rogues(black), and sorcerers(purple).  These followers together with a fifth resource, coin, are used to complete quests as well as purchase new buildings which provide additional actions on the board on subsequent turns.

The fixed locations on the map, together with the additional buildings purchased by the players during the game, are what offer the actions necessary to acquire more “followers” as mentioned above.

So, during a typical turn of play, each player will take one of a finite number of worker tokens and allocate them to specific free areas on the board and in the process execute the action found there. In most instances this will entail gathering followers and adding them to the player's pool. In some instances, rather than followers, players could end up gathering coin, quest, or intrigue cards. As soon as a player has enough followers to complete a quest, he can turn that quest in and add the associated points to his final tally. Intrigue cards when invoked during a turn (again as a result of claiming an associated action) usually take the form of follower gathering, either from a common pool or “stolen” from another player’s available pool.

In summary, Lords of Waterdeep offers diverse paths towards points scoring which make it a truly intriguing game. You get points for quests resolved, residual coin and followers left at the end of the game and for quests which are specific to the “Lord” assigned to you (randomly) at the beginning of the game.

Another intriguing game that makes part of my collection and which adopts a modified Worker Placement mechanism is Raiders of the North Sea. This game adopts a similar placement model but this time a player gets to take one or two out of a possible three actions. The first two possible actions are linked and involve both a “worker placement” and “removal” action. Alternatively (if all conditions are met) a player may decide to opt for a lucrative raid option. Raiding obviously scores the most points but requires the gathering of both food resources as well as crew members for your raiding party. There are not all that many turns in a full game, so each action taken becomes important making it a brilliant and challenging game.

At the end of a game, players will score points for raids conducted, any livestock, gold and iron tokens in hand as well as for active crew members on your raiding party. Players also get to score points for how far they might have progressed along the armoury track (paid in steel tokens during the game) and the Valkyrie track (paid in crew members who fall in battle during raids...a bit gruesome I know). Overall, this is a solid worker placement game.

Tokaido is another game that adopts a worker placement mechanism, but the action taken is reminiscent of leapfrog, whereby locations selected along the game track can only be selected from those just ahead of the leading player. Furthermore, the next turn is taken by the player whose worker is the furthest behind along the track at that given point in time. Tokaido offers interesting decisions, since points can be earned through diverse actions. For instance, there is a decision that needs to be taken on how far ahead you should jump on your next turn to attain a particular objective. This because, when you move too far ahead along the track, you reduce your point scoring opportunities later while also increasing those of your opponents behind you. Character abilities, which are significantly diverse, add to the variety in the game, since not all characters benefit the same from all locations along the game track. Having a good understanding of what the characters can or cannot do, can also help you to weigh your forward movements while obtaining the crucial points necessary to snatch a victory.

Another worker placement game, which many consider to be among the first to employ such a mechanism is Carcassonne. In this game which is principally “tile-laying” in nature, players take turns to lay tiles in specific configurations to create features they will then lay claim to. For example, I might get a city tile, place it adjacent to another, yet unclaimed, city tile on the table and lay claim to it by placing one of my meeples there. The catch is that before that feature is completed (and there are ways in which this is achieved), you may not recall or recycle the assigned meeple back into your hand. In this classic game, maintaining an adequate supply of meeples, in hand, goes a long way towards helping you build your point score. Having too many unused meeples on the other hand, is still not a good strategy since you are effectively blocking any further point scoring possibilities.

Good worker placement games do an excellent job of offering a finite pool of resources but many instances of decision making, each translating into opportunities to score points and possibly win a game.

In a subtle way, they teach players how to hone a fine balancing act based on retaining just enough meeples to affect the next profitable play, while at the same time ensuring that points flow in at a steady pace.

As you might have deduced by now, I tend to like this game mechanism in all its various forms. The main reason is that this is a mechanism normally linked to euro-style game systems that focus on player engagement as opposed to player elimination. I am not fond of the latter game mechanism as it inevitably entails having players fall by the wayside, doing nothing, till the game is finally over. Indeed, one of my favourite pastimes, as a board game hobbyist, is to find ways to adapt traditional board game rules, shifting them from player elimination to euro-style variants or co-op. Obviously the nature of that variation will strongly depend on the original game’s components and core game structure.

Over the coming months I will be proposing a few homebrew variants for classic, player elimination games. The first will be a homebrew version of a classic Sword and Sorcery game. I’ll reveal nothing else for now.

Back to worker placement games, the market has over recent years given rise to a wide assortment of games which embrace this mechanism to some degree. At their very core these games have a simple economic model, based on a limited supply of resources which are in their turn crucial towards winning a game. How these resources are released and collected is normally linked to two factors. The first factor is board actions, a worker is placed at a location on the board which triggers an action, once an action is triggered by one player it becomes unavailable to others until the end of a given turn. The second factor is linked to the nature of the point generation being embraced by a player. Normally, a good worker placement game offers diverse tracks along which a player can advance, gaining crucial victory points in the process. The assortment of these tracks is normally designed in such a way that no one track becomes the exclusive focus of final victory.

In fact, these games put emphasis on goal attainment as opposed to player confrontation. The message being that the “economic” success attained by a player is less about direct confrontation than it is about optimizing the various tracks that will allow further point scoring. In order to explain this a bit better I will focus on one of my current favourites, Raiders of the North Sea (RoNS).

In RoNS, players have various tracks they can pursue in order to earn crucial points towards victory. The core mechanism is the raid, everything you do in the game is geared towards conducting raids at several key locations on the board. Yet these raids necessitate resources in order to carry them out. You need to put together a crew, sufficient food and, later in the game, gold.

Yet while it is possible to obtain food directly from one location on the board itself, there are other resources available (normally through a raid) that can generate additional food to use on raids. In RoNS, this resource is Livestock. You can use Livestock at a location called the Longhouse to trade one livestock token for two food tokens. Yet in order to be effective on raids and earn more points, players need to recruit more crew members and further harden their crew’s skills through another track known as the armoury track. Players will, on occasion, loot metal ingots as part of their raids. These can be turned into armoury points by trading one metal ingot for two armoury points. Interestingly if you are not getting any iron ingots to trade for armoury points, you can still buy points on this track with coin, though at a slower rate. These points are then added to the overall attack score made up of the various attack scores of the active crew members. A higher overall attack score will in most instances lead to a higher raid score which goes towards a player’s final tally.

Another interesting track, which is highly thematic in my opinion is the Valkyrie track. As would have most probably been the case in real life, not all crew members on a raid would have made it back alive. Yet Vikings believed that there was nothing more honourable than to die in battle with a sword in your hand. They in fact believed that Valkyries would seek out the fallen on the battlefield and take up their spirit to Valhalla where they would live forever in the presence of their Gods. This is where the Valkyrie track comes in, each dead crew member generates points along the track, and these are in turn added to a player’s final score.

The longhouse itself, mentioned earlier, can also be a source of points. In fact, players can make offerings to the Gods at the Longhouse, exchanging loot obtained in raids for points. This might make sense especially towards the end of game where a player may not have enough resources to raid the final three locations on the map, the fortresses, but still have enough loot to make offerings at the longhouse.

This interplay of point scoring tracks and raids is what make RoNS so incredibly interesting in my opinion. It forces you to assess your situation repeatedly during each turn. You need to assess your strategy in the light of changes which accrue from turn to turn, as well as keep a close eye on the endgame which can be triggered by any player raiding and destroying at least 2 of the three fortresses on the map. More incredibly, the game does all this while never resorting to player elimination, no one is out of the game before the game ends and the points tallied.

Therefore, I find myself liking this game mechanism. Not only, but you can bet that I will try any game that has this mechanism at its core. As in the case of Lords of Waterdeep and RoNS, theming further accentuates the enjoyment because I like both. Still themes apart, worker placement offers me a lot of incentives towards committing my time to learning how to play and win.

One final comment on this mechanism is that designers are still finding new ways in which to incorporate it into their creations. In 2020, Dune Imperium hit the market with a new flavour of worker placement that somehow espouses confrontation between players. While so far, the nature of worker placement games has not been linked with player clashes (to some extent) this does not entail that we will not be seeing more games like Dune Imperium. In all likelihood similar worker placement games will eventually make it to the market, each offering a slightly different twist to differentiate.

As for me, I will obviously be on the lookout.