Board games, Quo Vadis?

 

Up until some years back, new board game titles still had this aura of novelty about them, at least that was my personal impression. There were still surprises to be had and the market was jampacked with titles that made my eyes gleam whenever I saw them. Something was refreshing about the subject which appeared to capture the imagination of hundreds of thousands, the world over.

Yet now as we approach the end of the 3rd quarter of 2023, I am getting the feeling that the industry is not quite as innovative as it was ten years ago. There is still talent out there, and there are still some exciting titles coming up, but the frequency of them feels less. We are getting “more of the same” as it were.

I am saying this, having seen some recent video blogs that have made me think. The games that are coming out are either a “plastic fest” of miniatures which, from personal experience, will tend to remain bland, grey, and unpainted or behemoths that would need a trolley to carry them around to your next gaming event. There’s also a third category, the expansion packs, just too many of these in my opinion. I ask myself, what’s wrong with the traditional, compact games, in standard-sized boxes we grew up with? Or, better still, those games which used to pack hours of fun in a manageable package? Also, I must add that this race for miniatures and titan-sized packages often inflates retail prices substantially, to the extent that only niche connoisseurs or board gamers with big pockets would dare to invest in them.

There again, I am not stating that there aren’t compact manageable titles out there, only that the industry is offering way too much space to new heavyweights, as it were.

On a personal level, I realised that perhaps it is us board gamers who are to blame for this situation. After all, the market will always respond to the demands and expectations of the clients who will fork out money to purchase a game. This situation then leads to several effects as I will explain hereunder. However, for now, I will just list them in bullet form.

1. -          Games will tend to use mechanisms that have proven to be popular.
2. -          Expansions to existing core games will be favoured over new products.
3. -          Games will copy established IPs to bank on their popularity.
4. -          Games will cater for miniature appetite over game substance.
5. -          Games will be crowdfunded often.

 

Games will tend to use mechanisms that have proven to be popular.

It stands to reason that game designers will try to build products based on mechanisms that have proven popular or are currently the main fad. This could have interesting outcomes but at the same time result in games that feel eerily similar if not identical. Two such games that come to mind are Lost Cities of Arnak and Dune Imperium. I opted to buy the latter, mostly because I happen to be a fan of Frank Herbert’s books. Another pair of games that feel very similar as you sit down to play them are Egizia-Shifting Sands and Imhotep-Builder of Egypt. Both games are strongly themed with Egyptian iconography and art. Both have a sort of queuing mechanism by which players select to visit specific sites to earn points. There are points of difference, for instance, Egizia has a gorgeous, fixed map with iconic ports, where players will place their workers to activate actions and obtain points. Imhotep on the other hand uses large cardboard stock cards to represent the locations, at which boats filled with player resources dock to earn points. Both have a mix of in-game scoring as well as final scoring...indeed these two could be considered cousins if not siblings.

 

Expansions to existing core games will be favoured over new products.

This is perhaps the most obvious and in-your-face tactic adopted by game designers.  Get an existing IP, perhaps a movie or some other franchise which people know about and then design your game around that. Once you establish the base game, then start churning out expansions. The list here is quite substantial but I will just mention Disney Villainous which can be considered as a perfect example of this strategy. So far, the original Disney Villainous has six (6) expansions under its belt. Marvel Villainous on the other hand, which can be considered a spin-off / re-skinning of sorts, already has four (4) expansions. When you consider that the first Villainous came out in 2018, that’s a lot of expansions for one title. It is also not the only board game to get a slew of expansions. Another game, a deck builder, called Ascension has had 15 expansions to date. The somewhat new title Dune Imperium released in 2021 already has three expansions with the third expansion being a standalone while also being an expansion. For the completionists among us, these expansions can be a bane, an expensive one at that. Yet few will find the space and time to play these expansions.

 

Games will copy established IPs to bank on their popularity.

Going back to the game “Villainous” and its Marvel variant, it is not surprising that this title is going strong. Currently, the Marvel franchise is going from strength to strength with Disney further leveraging its strengths through aggressive marketing, a deep schedule of films and TV series and a presence in practically all relevant mediums from comics to toys, to costumes and other paraphernalia. That this spilt over into board games is not surprising at all. Others who may not have direct access to the IP will still try to piggyback on the popularity of the hero genre by creating games that contain hero types and scenarios deeply reminiscent of the Marvel universe. I need to add however that this stratagem is not specifically associated with board game design. Without going into the merits of who came first or who did what, it is a known fact that Marvel and DC comics created several characters based on the other's existing pantheon. So, for instance, Marvel has Namor King of Atlantis and DC has Aquaman King of Atlantis. DC had Dr. Fate and Marvel had Dr. Strange. The list goes on.

On a different note, and if we were to expand the concept of IP to include IPs of established board game franchises, we could mention the Pandemic brand of cooperative games as a further example. There are as, of my last reckoning, 18 titles under this brand, again a substantial list given that the first game came out in 2008. However not to fault Z-man games, they have a substantial portfolio of successful game titles other than just pandemic. I quote the pandemic series of games, more as an example of exploiting a successful IP over time. Furthermore, again to the merit of Z-man games, they did successfully create derivations of the pandemic ruleset rather than just outright resorting to simple reskinning. I like to mention here both Pandemic – Fall of Rome and Pandemic – Rise of the Litch King which both offer familiar though distinct gaming experiences.

 

Games will cater for miniature appetite over game substance.

The use of miniatures in gaming is nothing new. The first tabletop “war games” depended on a slew of miniature soldiers, mounted cavalry, cannons and what have you, to breathe a certain tangible (tactile?) quality into proceedings. Nowadays, while modern war gamers seldom re-enact Napoleonic conflicts, they still utilise the same trappings of the original games. You will still find painted miniature armies of infantry or mounted troops as well as mock-ups of terrain and other obstacles to create visual depth. As you would expect, some fans of these wargames are also avid board gaming enthusiasts and therefore easily lured by the prospect of having miniatures worked into a particular board game title. The same can be said of D&D players, who might already be familiar with the use of miniatures in their campaigns and therefore see these as important contributors towards the appeal of a board game. Unsurprisingly, the number of games out there that rely heavily on miniatures is breathtaking. The ever-popular “Zombicide” franchise throws trays upon trays of miniatures into every box and expansion they churned out. Games from CMON have developed a strong reputation for being miniature-heavy titles. They obviously do not stand alone in this sense.

Personally, I must admit that miniatures do add a little extra oomph to a game, but on the other hand, I still feel that these are not enough to make a game brilliant. Good game mechanisms and a solid ruleset will always triumph over top-notch gaming pieces. As an example, I would like to offer a nod to the Undaunted series of wargames which do not employ miniatures but which, on the other hand, successfully employ cardboard tokens to great effect.

Yet for all their charm, these miniature-heavy games are space hogs and more notably, very steeply-priced. A base or core game could easily set you back €100 on the very lower end of the spectrum with some titles going up to two hundred (200) or three hundred (300) Euro, or more, per box. Add to this that most of these games are followed up with several expansions and you can imagine the real investment that goes into owning and playing these titles.

 

Games will copy established IPs to bank on their popularity.

Here we can list games that copy the looks of another popular board game just to get a leg into the market. For instance, here I will mention Wingspan by Elizabeth Hargreaves published by Stonemeier Games and Birdwatcher by Zakir Jafry published by Oni Games. While the mechanisms used in either board game are noticeably different when you get down to it, the first impression I got when I saw the box for Birdwatcher, was that the latter was some kind of spinoff to the former title. It did not help that Birdwatchers used a similar art style for their bird drawings as you find in Wingspan. You may argue that a bird is a bird, so what could they have done differently? In truth, they could have, for instance, chosen a more modern art style or perhaps opted for minimalism to distinguish themselves from Wingspan. Better still, they could have opted to focus on the birdwatching aspect as inspiration for their box art, maybe focusing instead on birdwatching tools and trappings rather than the birds themselves. In the end, they opted for artwork that is strongly reminiscent of Wingspan. Ironically, while I have opted to invest in Wingspan, I do not exclude purchasing a copy of Birdwatcher if I ever get the opportunity.

Interestingly, my behaviour here leads board game designers and publishers to stick to the tried and tested instead of taking the path less travelled. Yet these same designers/publishers seem to forget that the “original” is seldom dethroned by a contender, no matter how well-packaged the latter might be. Nothing, in my opinion, can beat true originality.

 

Games will be crowdfunded often.

In addition to what I have said so far, there is another element in this equation that in my opinion could be contributing towards the homogenisation of board game content. That factor is crowdfunding. While the notion (i.e., crowdfunding) is indeed brilliant, and gems are published from these ventures, the truth is that the crowdfunded games are generally geared towards the connoisseurs, the board game collectors, or consummate gamers. Basically, those board gamers, with deep pockets, willing to spend a pretty penny to get their crowdfunded games.

Indeed, crowdfunded projects will seldom in my opinion give rise to products one might consider “gateway games”.

To clarify, when I refer to “gateway games”, I refer to those games which have been proven to be particularly easy to teach, are appealing and are priced for casual players. These are games that you will table confidently when inviting casual gamers to a gaming event. Yet, I feel that it is precisely in what one would term “gateway games” that you stand to find the real gems. Furthermore, precisely “gateway” games stand a greater chance of attracting the next generation of players and potential customers. You are not going to do that with something like the gargantuan Gloomhaven, which though beautiful, is just way too niche and specific, to appeal to the casual board game player out there.

The following is a personal thought exercise based on my industry perception. I feel that by focusing on niche markets and assuaging the needs of hardcore board gamers, crowdfunding could well end up crippling innovation and experimentation. The reason is obvious when you think about it, resources spent on managing crowdfunded, content-heavy board games, are effectively being re-routed from other potential ventures. In time as the number of hardcore aficionados will dwindle, there will be no newcomers into the arena, no new players to pick up the mantle. I predict that this will lead to a negative feedback cycle that will see the number of crowdfunded board game projects grow less. This will be followed by a period epitomised by a dearth of new titles and a resurgence in classic board games or reprints of older titles. What could happen after that is anybody’s guess.

And yet, while my impression is that the seeds of the industry’s collapse have already been sowed and are, perhaps inexplicably, being nurtured by a slew of bad decisions, market pointers appear to be stating otherwise. An article in the Washington Post stated that the global board game market currently has an estimated value between $11 billion and $13 billion. The article goes on to say that it is expected to grow by about 7 to 11 per cent over the next 5 years (Research companies Technavio and Imarc).  Yet on the other hand, an article from Licensing International (https://licensinginternational.org/news/board-games-sales-slow-ahead-of-holidays/) back in October last year appeared to be indicating a counter-argument whereby booming demand for board games (spurred no doubt by the lockdowns during the recent COVID pandemic) was showing the first signs of slowing down. Perhaps here it must be read as slowing down to a new, perhaps lower level of consumption now that people have effectively returned to more “normal” daily routines. The same article also suggests that gamers are moving towards purchasing titles they do not own, away from the classics they already own.

Linked to this, a survey site PrintNinja noted that, in a survey they conducted, 41% of respondents claimed to buy anything between 5 to 10 games a year. When you consider the associated demographic and global context, that’s a lot of games per year. Year on year cooperative games have picked up significant steam. The current trends in fact show that these are precisely the type of games most sought after.

Yet what is most notable and ties into the former argument linked to crowdfunding, PrintNinja notes that independent developers have shaken up the market and gained traction for their games through crowdfunding. This does not mean that making a game has been simplified, there are challenges linked to sourcing, developing, and distributing which they too must face. I would like to point out that it is not uncommon for a crowdfunded game to never really see the light of day on account of a failure in a key aspect of its development. Yet the eagerness of board gamers to spend money on these games cannot be underestimated. It is the motivation that leads these independent game designers to try their luck with publishing board game titles.  It’s in fact telling, that 21% of respondents to a PrintNinja survey, indicated that they spend anywhere between $600 to $1000 on board games per year. Equally telling that 41% stated that they purchase games through crowdfunding platforms.

Yet the future of board gaming isn’t bleak, nor is this gaming genre’s demise anytime soon. The reason at the end of the day is very simple. Mankind has played some sort of board game using tokens, a board and some kind of ruleset, for eons. Board games have the power to bring friends and family together over what mounts up to friendly, safe, sandboxed competition. They can also serve as icebreakers when strangers meet up, allowing everyone to connect over a shared activity that is at one time engaging and entertaining. These attributes are not unique to boardgames however as competitive sports have been used for similar purposes over time. Yet board games can be considered more approachable on account that physical prowess is not a necessary contributing factor as would be the case in sporting activities.

This is precisely why I cannot envisage board games ever going totally away. They will persist in some form or other, reflecting the tastes as well as the social and cultural context in which they evolve and thrive. Indeed, the very renaissance in this type of gaming which has brought about the incredible boom we are still experiencing to a degree, is what will guarantee that these plastic, wood, and cardboard wonders will still be around when our great-grandchildren come of age.

 

Misrepresentation of ideal player counts in board games

So as summer comes to its annual conclusion, I decided to return to the roots of BGHaven and focus instead on an aspect of board gaming that I find consistently problematic. I am referring to the matter of player counts. There is a fine line between what can be considered a manageable, enjoyable game and a behemoth of a game with significant downtime verging on the intolerable. What I am hinting at here is the notion of the duration of a turn of play versus an optimal player count that does not lead to substantial downtime. As you will appreciate, turn-taking is subject to the ease with which players progress through a turn, the number of options and/or decisions faced during any given turn, as well as other contributing factors such as individual characters and propensity to overthink actions. So the issue does present itself as a composite of factors that manifest as a complex intertwined mesh of actions and processes.

To better understand the complexity of the matter, you need to break down a board game into its constituent components. When players engage with a board game during a session, they are essentially engaging their attention on many levels.

1.      They will typically manipulate gaming components in specific ways. There is a tactile element to the process, which is used primarily to remind the player of the initiation, ensuing decision process and completion of a given turn. I also include any upkeep tasks carried out in preparation for the subsequent round.

2.      They will refer to a set of rules linked to the game to execute the manipulations required during any given turn.

3.      Depending on the ruleset, players will also be expected to interact with other players as part of their turn. This interaction increases when one considers cooperative games that demand a certain amount of discussion before a final decision is taken by the active player.

4.      In most cases, they will experience a certain amount of player downtime in between turns.

5.      This downtime could be caused by any, or all, of the following issues.

a.      It could be caused because of the number of actions that would need to be taken per turn.

b.      It could be caused consequently by the learning curve required to fully understand the game.

c.      It could be caused because of indecision on the part of the active player which could in turn lead to a situation termed analysis paralysis.

Now that I have framed the interactions that are necessary during gameplay, let’s see how each of them could contribute towards establishing the ideal number of players.

So, while listed as point (1) above, the physical manipulation of gaming components is normally expected to happen following some rules-based decision taken by an active player. This physical manipulation can be a) preparatory, b) execution or c) housekeeping in nature. Preparatory actions are those actions taken mechanically, in line with game rules, but antecedent to the actual action taken by the player. Execution-based manipulation of components occurs when the active player decides what action to take on his or her turn. This is a manipulation players take for granted, as necessary, for the execution of a turn. Then there is the housekeeping manipulation of components. This takes place once the execution phase has been executed affecting the game state for that player.

Given these listed stages, one needs to appreciate that the more components a player needs to uniquely manipulate per turn, the more actively these actions will impact the duration of a turn. While it is tempting to design games that employ several components, the impact on turn duration needs to be kept actively in check. The reason here is obvious since there is a direct relationship between the turn duration for a given player and the downtime for the other players involved in a game.

The second point listed above refers to the ruleset employed. It is appreciable that the more extensive and unnecessarily verbose a ruleset, the steeper the learning curve. Keeping rules simple is an art unto itself. Yet some designers tend to forget this undeniable truth. Most of the timeless board game classics, that have survived the test of time, have the shortest rulesets. Think how simple it is to teach the rules of Checkers, Chess or Nine-Man Morris, it all boils down to stripping a game to its simplest purest form.

Some will argue that the purpose of a ruleset is not solely to explain the movements and processes but rather to weave a virtual world around the players, establishing context and purpose. For, apart from pure abstract strategy games, most games are built on a premise or theme that aims to weave a virtual world around the players, a fantastic illusion within which the game exists. I posit that this can still be achieved without standing in the way of clarity or ease of use. Ease of use is key here. During active play, participants need to find it easy to access key rules to determine the legitimacy of an action. This is more important during the early stages when players are still learning how to play. If the rules are unclear, interspersed with game-specific jargon or irrelevant blocks of text, they will become stumbling blocks rather than assist the flow of play. So, should designers simply give up on creating eye-catching or thought-provoking themes? Not at all! On the contrary, the theme or virtual world built should be offered a space but one which must in turn give way to practicality and common-sense design concepts. For example, the rulebook could be structured in such a way as to follow a logical and rational representation of the gaming process. Let us for a moment consider the following sequence:

1.      Brief introduction highlighting the world within which the game exists.

2.      A concise description of the game objectives and win conditions

3.      A review of the components used.

4.      A clear description of the setup process

5.      A breakdown of turn-taking including sequence of actions, available choices, and final housekeeping on turn conclusion.

6.      A comprehensive glossary of terms used within the scope of the game.

7.      A breakdown and illustration of any game-specific iconography used.

8.      An appendix offering a more in-depth foray into the world within which the game exists including any histories or flavour texts as required.

You will note that the structure puts more emphasis on pushing relevant gaming materials at the front of the rulebook with any further materials relegated towards the end of the publication.  This is not the perfect sequence but close enough. Some ruleset creators may, for instance, relegate points 6 and 7 to the very end of the rulebook for practical reasons. Others may opt to segregate the appendix mentioned in point 8 as a separate companion booklet further contracting the length and content of the main ruleset.  Others still may decide to create flashcards that summarise the turn-taking noted in point 5 as well as offer a summary of iconography used on the same flashcards. These are all stratagems aimed at simplifying the learning process and thus rapidly reducing downtime to what is essential for the game to proceed at a brisk pace. The third point raised above is player-to-player interaction. Along general lines, all games will demand some manner of player-to-player interaction, it's only the extent of the interaction that varies. In classical, two-player abstract games, interaction is mostly limited to responding to an opponent's moves once these have been completed. Yet in a modern Eurogame, the levels of interactions can be several, ranging from well-thought countermoves to specific actions taken which may or may not be directly influenced by an opponent's actions, to resource and worker management.

If we consider cooperative games, this level of player-to-player interaction necessarily balloons. Here players are encouraged to exchange ideas and opinions which could inform the final decision taken by the active player. The deeper the players are into a cooperative game, the more intense these discussions can get. While I have never been in a situation where time was called to hasten the decision process in a cooperative game, we got close!

All this leads to the notion of downtime. Reducing the amount of unproductive downtime is a real concern in most game designs. If players disengage from a game because they have nothing to do but wait, you have a real problem. Downtime can, in turn, be either “perceived” to be so on account of a player not fully appreciating the game, or “actual”, in the sense that even if the other players are efficient in executing their turn of play, the number of manipulations is such that downtime is still significant. While there is nothing one can do to address the former, actual downtime can be tackled by one of two methods.

At a very simple level, actual downtime can be reduced by reducing the number of actions needed to complete a turn. If a player needs to complete fewer actions to complete a turn, then the downtime experienced by the other players will be less. Another simple way to reduce downtime is to reduce the player count. This makes sense in that if you have a four-player game with each player taking two minutes to complete a turn efficiently, then each of those four players will have to experience a downtime of six minutes before they can get back to executing their next turn. There again I am assuming efficient play, if any of those four players take longer to execute a turn then the downtime will grow accordingly.

I have seen the effect of turn duration on player downtime in quite a few board games but nowhere was it more obvious than in deck builders like the card game “Ascension”. The game starts quite snappily, mostly because each player starts with a relatively small, standard, 10-card deck. The situation, however, does not last as, turn after turn, players acquire additional cards from the common marketplace. Added to that, the acquired cards can offer added actions when they are played, and each turn can become an extended process of cards calling out more cards which in turn leads to further actions. In a two-player game, the drawn-out turns, towards the latter stages of a match, can be considered quasi-acceptable. At higher player counts, however, it could turn into a downtime purgatory.

 

Yet there is one kind of action, which could be enacted by the active player, which is not easy to control. This is the time spent by the player in active deliberation, often consequently to indecision, sometimes termed “analysis paralysis”. Here we have a situation where a player ends up taking a disproportionate amount of time weighing options before deciding what action or line of thought to pursue. There is no real remedy to this phenomenon since this is often linked to an individual's character. Yet it is possible to perhaps curtail the negative effects by actively encouraging players to take shorter turns. This could be achieved to an extent by endorsing planning and being more decisive during their turn-taking. In extreme situations, analysis paralysis could affect the other players adversely. In particularly severe situations, the game coordinator could advocate the use of an egg timer to force the player to act and conclude the turn. One hopes that these situations never arise, but egg timers or stopwatches could become necessary if the offender keeps holding back gameplay with excessive deliberation time.

 

So, what can we take away from all this? Well, principally the number of game components, ruleset complexity, turn duration and by association downtime, can strongly influence the playability or enjoyability of a game at a given player count. Yet a balance needs to be struck by the designers between integrating enough actions to make a game engaging, while at the same time catering to the number of players necessary to make the game work. As we shall see, striking this balance can be achieved in various ways.

 

In truth, there are a few design hacks aimed at reducing downtime with higher player counts. For instance, some designers opt for some actions to be taken simultaneously or some actions could be taken in between turns or on other players’ turns. However, this stratagem may not always be feasible and may make sense only in so far as the selected actions do not offer one-sided advantages to the active player.

Another mechanism often implemented, and somewhat reminiscent of what I have just mentioned, is to offer piggyback actions on the decisions made by the current, active player. Here I would like to point out Tiny Epic Galaxies, which uses this mechanism in its gameplay. Furthermore, to reduce downtime, actions could be aggregated or moved to the upkeep or housekeeping stage of a turn. In this latter stage, no active decisions would be required, hence reducing downtime.

When cards are drawn, or actions are taken, towards the end of a turn, there will be a tendency for a player to work on the cards received “in between” their turns rather than “on their turn”. This will have the effect of keeping them engaged as they plan for their next turn, and they will also have a higher incentive to observe the plays made by others. The overall result is that of reducing perceived downtime by increasing player involvement.

However, there is a counter side to this strategy. Some players do not look forward to further decisions in between turns. These players see downtime as an opportunity to chat, stretch, or just disengage from the action at the table. In the case of these players, you will notice a tendency to adopt an aloof and detached approach to end-of-turn housekeeping to the point that they will frequently delay reviewing any new material or information right to the last possible second. Doing so, they end up still carrying out most of their decisions when the action at the table returns to them.

This brings us full circle to the purpose of, and limitations to, downtime. In most board games, downtime is fundamental to offer players some breathing space.  At the same time, gamer psychology plays an equally important role in the perception and utility of downtime. Players who are “always on” will find unnecessary downtime tedious. On the other hand, players who know how to utilize that same downtime to prepare for their next move could benefit from it. This does not mean that designers should not pay attention to curtail unwarranted downtimes but that they should aim for a style of action optimisation that does not impact gameplay.

To be fair with some of the best board game titles out there, this aspect of balancing downtime and player count is mostly taken seriously. Yet I feel that some titles fail to properly address the matter and present board games that essentially do not scale up properly from 2 to 3 or 4 players. What I normally do when I realise that a game works better at lower counts is to put a marker or reminder within the box for the next time, I play the game.

This is because, in truth, the player count on the box can be misleading. In most instances, the best way to determine the ideal player count is to playtest the game with different numbers of players. However, there are some further pointers you could use to guide you during the playtest which could save you some time.

Start by looking at the mechanism used in the board game under consideration.

For example, a game that requires lots of player interaction may work better with a larger group, while a game that utilises individual player boards may fare better with a smaller group. There are exceptions of course but along general lines this premise holds. A game like Mysterium for instance works best with larger player counts whereas games like Wingspan are ideally played with smaller player counts. I prefer 3-4 players for the latter and most probably 2- 3 players if you want to play a relaxed game with little downtime.

As can be seen from all I have presented here, addressing downtime is a complex affair that needs a holistic approach to be resolved. I have noted that changes to the ruleset or how these are presented could help reduce downtime. I also pointed out that depending on the mechanisms chosen, downtime itself could be used to carry out actions that might help reduce player inactivity in between turns. Yet there is so much one can do by tweaking rulesets and gaming mechanisms. To ensure downtime is kept to essentials one must also address time lost due to analysis paralysis. We saw that this too can be curtailed by adopting various strategies like the introduction of a timer as well as properly structuring rules and actions to facilitate understanding and learning.

Before concluding this foray into player counts and downtime, I wish to stress that despite what I have said here, there are games that truthfully reflect the player count as well as the anticipated game duration. Yet I feel that many designers need to clarify that their statements are a best-case scenario and do not reflect the realities faced by new players who might have just cracked open a board game for the first time. From experience, I think it would be fair to say that for first-time players, the game duration could be anywhere from two-thirds to twice as long as the duration reported on the box itself. For instance, a 45-minute game will most likely last 70 minutes, whereas a 120-minute game could well last close to 200 minutes when played for the first time.

I hope that you have found this foray into board game player counts both interesting and informative. I also hope that it will help to guide and inform your decisions when it comes to selecting a new board game to play with your gaming group.  Principally remember that you could face a situation where the recommended number of players on the box may not always be the optimal one when you sit down to play. Also, you can arrive at a realistic, optimal player count by considering “player turn duration” as well as downtime. Also, keep in mind that character and player psychology will impact both turn duration and downtime and that you may wish to take this into consideration when recommending a board game to a gaming group or determining the ideal player count. Ultimately try to bear in mind that playing a board game with first-time players will take longer than what it says on the box, so plan extra time for that. More importantly, always discuss these matters with your gaming group to make sure that expectations are met and that everyone has a great time.  

Hacking, Heckling & Harassment

So, quite out of the blue, I found myself deactivating my Facebook account. The reason was that I witnessed yet another Facebook account being hacked and it happened to belong to my wife Claire. Regrettably, that meant I also had to disengage from my Facebook group "Boardgames &Co" and fall back on alternative technologies in order to stay in touch.

This also means I will be changing the format of my posts here, some posts will be news and similar to posts I have created in the past. Others will focus on gaming events be they local events or private board game gatherings with friends. So this blog will have to become something more, a sort of community board where friends or folk with a passion for board gaming can come to have a look at what's happening in my little corner of the universe.

Having said that, I finally got to bring "Dune Imperium" to the table. I Played it at 4-players with some genuine board game enthusiasts. Overall Dune Imperium offers a great mix of modern boardgame mechanisms, such as Deck Building and Worker placement, but it also offers a depth of play that goes beyond either. Here is a game that would need to be explored over several sessions. While unfortunately, we didn't manage to complete the game due to time restrictions, we all agreed it was worth another shot or two... Overall a great evening and one I'd love to repeat in the near future. This time round I edged ahead by just one point mid-game...so there's that. Still, I'd love to see how the end game accelerates once you near the bottom of the Conflict deck.

I'm not going to go overboard to try and explain how Dune Imperium plays, Rodney Smith from Watch it played did a superb job and I will leave you in his more than capable hands (just head over to their YouTube channel and look up the video). I will however share some snaps with you so you get an idea of the table presence of this superlative game.

That's all I've got to share with you for this first, post Facebook era for Boardgames & Co. I cannot say that this transition will be easy for me, in any way or manner, but the tools are there and I will be using them to the best of my abilities to keep the spark of board gaming camaraderie as alive as possible. 

Have a great one everybody!

Board Game - State of Play - June 2023

As a board game enthusiast, hobbyist, and modest collector, I am always on the lookout for new trends as they come to the fore. The reason is simple, I know just how expensive some of these titles are, and making a bad choice could mean getting lumped with a game you will never get to the table. Over the years, I must admit, that I have fallen victim to a few flukes that I just could not bring to the table. While in hindsight I know my decision to purchase certain titles was misguided at best, at the time of purchase I was enthusiastic and positive that the purchase was a good one.

Having said that, having indeed bought a few titles I later discovered that weren’t to my liking or playable within my social context, I learnt to look harder for any information that might help me decide on my next purchase. The internet does help in this situation, but you need to listen to competing reviews and opinions. Over time, maybe out of laziness or simply because sifting through sources can be time-consuming, I have settled on a few key sources of information. Admittedly I could do worse than refer to reviews offered by the guys at “The Dice Tower”, “Watch it Played” and “Shut Up & Sit Down”, but the truth is that their reviews can be polarising and not always in line with my own personal tastes.

To be fair the reviews and opinions I get from “The Dice Tower” feel balanced and offer a spread of opinions, which is healthy. While my own gaming tastes tend to align themselves (to some degree) with those of Tom Vasel, I find Zee Garcia’s abstract game bias and Mike Delisio’s focus on solo gaming very refreshing and eye-opening. The truth is that you need to see the same topic from different perspectives, it helps you grow.

“And why is this important to you?” you may ask me. I believe in the importance of mental health and retaining a certain degree of mental “agility” as it were, games can help achieve this goal. This is the fundamental principle behind my involvement with gaming. This and the enjoyment and socialisation derived from engaging others during face-to-face play. I am a firm believer that for a game to be worth my time, it must give me or teach me something. A good cooperative game should teach me the importance of being a team player, a legacy game should allow me to appreciate the importance of forward planning and decision-making, and solo gaming should help me develop self-motivation and consistency.

From my journey into modern board gaming, I have experienced several changes in both my unique perspective and what the market offers. My board gaming journey began a long time ago, well before the current renaissance that can be traced back to the mid-to-late 90s. Still, for the purposes of this narrative, I will focus on precisely the last fifteen to twenty years.

Back when I bought my first modern game, which was Marc Andre’s “Splendor”, I was still new to the whole Eurogame scene. The games I knew were those like Risk, Talisman, Hero Quest (the 80’s version of the game), Monopoly, Scrabble, Othello, Cluedo, Mastermind, Hasbro’s Battleships, Draughts, and the obligatory Chess. None of these has any of the elements that were to later define Eurogames, a style of gaming heralded by trailblazing titles such as Settlers of Catan, among others. It was in this scenario that I encountered the highly polished and iconic web series “Tabletop” hosted by Will Wheaton.

Being a “Star Trek: The Next Generation” fan, I knew who Will was thanks to his appearance on that beloved series. His delivery and showmanship made for a very entertaining web series; one I would look forward to watching whenever the next episode aired. It was thanks to him that I discovered several iconic games like “Lords of Waterdeep” (which I fell in love with), Sheriff of Nottingham, Tsuro, Mice & Mystics, Dixit, Tiny Epic Galaxies, Qwirkle and others. Most of the games he presented had the unique quality of being relatively easy to teach, had great table presence and almost never overstood their welcome. Most of these titles ended up in my collection by the way.

As my passion for board games gradually fanned into a roaring fire, I began to look around for other sources of inspiration for my next purchase. I found this in the Dice Tower and Watch it Played guys. As a side note, I must also include Chaz Marler’s “Pair of Dice Paradise” (which would later join forces and become part of "Watch it Played") which brought a witty brand of humour to game news and reviews that I still love to this day.

Personally, I felt that things did change a bit once Will Wheaton’s webisodes came to an end. By then the market had matured somewhat and there were more voices airing their opinions and unboxing the latest games on video. This could be both a bad and a good thing. Good in the sense that you could see what was in the box and how the rules worked, bad in that often, these reviews came with obvious biases. Furthermore, these reviews were themselves the result of the reviewers sifting through titles that interested them specifically, resulting in a somewhat blinkered perspective on what was available.

To correct this, there was and still is one thing a hobbyist like me can resort to, you need to seek out further opinions, further reviews. You need to expect that these additional reviews will at times be conflicting, or contradictory but ultimately you will have a better understanding of whether a game is for you or not. You will also discover that different reviewers will tend to focus on different board game types or characteristics, increasing your overall exposure to what is on the market.

Going back to the changing landscape in board gaming, in recent years we have seen an increase in some specific categories of board games. One such category which has grown in popularity is cooperative board games. In these games, players will often work together to achieve a common goal. These games encourage teamwork and communication and are often seen as a more inclusive and less cutthroat alternative to traditional board games. Indeed, they are also ideal in situations where you have a mixed table of experienced and casual players, with the latter finding these types of games less intimidating.

Another category of games which has gained traction over the past few years is legacy games. Legacy games are board games that evolve over time as players make decisions and progress through a campaign or story. These games often have a finite number of plays and are meant to be played over multiple sessions with the same group of people. Legacy games can create a unique and immersive gaming experience that is different from traditional board games.

While I am not particularly fond of them, Solo games have also become increasingly popular. The recent COVID-19 pandemic helped in this genre's growing popularity on account of the lockdown and social-distancing experienced in most of the Western world. In fact, many board game publishers are now releasing games that are specifically designed to be played alone. These games often feature puzzles or challenges that can be tackled independently and can be a great way for people to enjoy board gaming even when they don't have a group of players available.

Almost an extension of the above, the last few years have also seen a rise in the number of Board Game Apps. Many modern board games have been adapted into mobile apps, allowing players to enjoy the game on their phones or tablets. This trend has made board games more accessible and convenient and has also introduced the hobby to a new generation of players. I have personally acquired a significant number of these adaptations including titles like Everdell, Wingspan, Raiders of the North Sea, Lords of Waterdeep, Sagrada, Mysterium, Hive, Ascension, Star Realms, and others.

Yet nothing has had a more accentuated impact on game design and development than the onset of crowdfunding. While there does not appear to be an established link between a boardgames popularity over time, or commercial success, several of the most popular game of the last decade have been crowdfunded (e.g., Cards Against Humanity and Gloomhaven). Through crowdfunding, game designers could pitch their ideas directly to the end consumer, board game enthusiasts and hobbyists. What this meant was that now designers could be ambitious, gamifying their proposal to the market in line with the uptake of funders. The more funders committed their cash to the project the more features are unlocked as part of the final product. As a result, some of the projects become substantial, multi-box offerings, replete with an assortment of premium components and extras. Obviously, this also means the final box set will cost a pretty penny, but that comes with the territory, I guess. 

In addition, crowdfunding platforms like Kickstarter and IndieGoGo have allowed independent game designers to bring their ideas to market without the backing of a traditional publisher. Understandably this has led to an explosion of new board games being produced. Crowdfunding effectively allows game designers to take more risks and produce games that might not have been viable through traditional publishing channels.

Overall, the impact of crowdfunded games on the board gaming industry and its popularity depends on various factors such as the quality and appeal of the games being produced, the success of the crowdfunding campaigns, and the ability of game designers to effectively market and distribute their products. Some games produced through crowdfunding will be duds and, in some instances, some crowdfunded projects do not see it through to development and delivery. One area which appears to suffer consequences to the rather accelerated development cycle of some gaming titles is game expansions.

In the past, board game expansions were never guaranteed. If a game was successful, then the company and game designers would dig in and see if they could come up with a valid expansion idea. Expansions usually came out much after the original game was published. To an extent, this allowed for a better-quality expansion with fewer errors once published. Contrary to this, some crowdfunded games have seen expansions being rushed into production while the campaign itself was barely over. Let us say that some of these expansions are of questionable quality. 

Yet despite all the pros and cons I have listed, crowdfunded board game projects still constitute a respectable proportion of all crowdfunded projects. This appears to indicate that going forward we will see more crowdfunded board game projects not less.

Not everything is peachy however, there are aspects of the boardgame production cycle that can suffer if the network they rest upon is disrupted in some way or another. For instance, logistics play a significant role in the manufacturing and distribution of board games. The board gaming industry has experienced significant growth in recent years, with more and more games being produced and sold worldwide. This growth has led to increased pressure on manufacturers and distributors to efficiently manage the supply chain and deliver games to customers in a timely and cost-effective manner. The COVID-19 pandemic had a significant impact on logistics in the board gaming industry, with disruptions to global supply chains and shipping delays.

Manufacturers face logistical challenges in sourcing raw materials, producing games in large quantities, and ensuring quality control. Many manufacturers are in China, which can present logistical challenges due to transportation and customs issues. Distributors on the other hand also face logistical challenges in getting games from manufacturers to retailers and consumers. This can include issues such as warehousing, shipping, and managing inventory levels. Additionally, board games come in various sizes and shapes, which can make shipping and storage more complicated. Tying back to the crowdfunding board games, one can now see why the larger games with unconventional package formats can give distributors nightmares when it comes to getting them from source to destination.

Yet what I have listed here are all aspects of the gaming industry that are somehow affecting what we find available in the stores. Not only that, but also what price points we should expect and how this will, in turn, affect what we purchase, and how frequently we purchase new titles. This is because not all board game enthusiasts have deep pockets, the contrary is more often true. At the same time, many of these same hobbyists have become increasingly discerning when it comes to the quality of the products they purchase. What this means is that unless buyers purchase titles blindly, they will expect decent quality in whatever they ultimately purchase.

For instance, through personal experience, I have come to notice that KOSMOS tends to use very average materials for its products. For example, last year I bought a Reiner Knizia title I had been intrigued by called “Lost Cities”. This title was carried by KOSMOS and happened to be available at a local hobby store. I obviously went for it as the price was not prohibitive. Yet when I played a few games, I realised the card quality was poor. The cards are, in my opinion, too susceptible to being damaged while handling them. The point is that the whole game revolves around a deck of cards, so the cards are rather important. Instead of focusing on the box art, I felt they could have spent a bit more on card quality and less on the box itself which serves no purpose other than to hold the deck and a small board used to help player organise their play area.

While quality is something modern board game hobbyists expect these days, it’s not the only aspect which they look at when purchasing their new titles. There is another, equally important aspect, game mechanics. Euro-style games have evolved considerably over the first two decades of the new millennium. While player elimination games are still part of any publishing house’s portfolio, euro-style games have garnered an ever more commanding proportion of these same companies’ portfolios.

What Euro-style games brought is a focus on point scoring and doing away with player elimination altogether. Yet how this is achieved has increased and diversified substantially, leading to the creation of many new mechanisms which have gained popularity over time. Others enjoyed popularity for a time only to be absorbed into newer and perhaps more sophisticated mechanisms. So, we get gaming mechanisms such as: -

• ·         Worker placement
• ·         Action Selection
• ·         Card Drafting
• ·         Deck Building
• ·         Area Control
• ·         Action rondelles
• ·         Auctions
• ·         Leapfrogging
• ·         Set Collection
• ·         Cooperation mechanisms
• ·         Asymmetric mechanics / Variable player powers
• ·         Action programming
• ·         Story Telling
• ·         Dice rolling
• ·         Take That
• ·         Push your luck
• ·         Tile placement
• ·         Trading
• ·         Hand Management
• ·         Pickup and Deliver
• ·         Route Building

The above list is anything other than exhaustive, but it allows me to illustrate the diversity of the mechanisms that can now be found in board games. Furthermore, some of the latest titles to hit the market tend to combine two or more mechanisms to create an innovative synergy. These create more compelling and rich experiences for players. Players who have evolved to playing these latter games will find it increasingly more difficult to go back to blander, simpler titles. I’d dare say that exposure to this growing list of game mechanics has created a new type of jaded board gamers that are way harder to please, or at least surprise, and therefore equally harder to draw in.

I personally blame this emerging scenario as the main reason for the rise in complex, campaign-driven, legacy-type games. I am here referring to the heavyweights of modern board gaming like Gloomhaven and Descent, the newer Frosthaven and other similar titles. It’s almost as if, to attract this growing niche of players, designers have decided to engage in increasing the duration and complexity of the titles they come up with.

On a personal level, this amalgam of factors and the ensuing issue posed by increased costs when it comes to purchasing goods online, have further accentuated the issues I face when sourcing new titles. On the one hand, purchasing new titles from abroad has become prohibitive with final price tags twice the cost (if not more) of the board game’s retail price. On the other hand, I am faced with a stronger reliance on local shops willing to import board gaming titles. This limits my selections squarely to what they have on offer. Few of these local retailers are then willing to risk importing new titles that are nothing but sure bets, no one wants to lose money.

I feel that it is high time that something is done to address the elephant in the room. Shipping costs need to be brought down again, either through direct legislation aimed at mitigating the negative impact on the final price of products delivered, or else an increase in 3^rd party consolidated shipping agencies who can, in turn, spread the shipping costs making deliverables more affordable. While there are some local operators trying to address this, I feel that the efforts are notably disjointed and rather difficult to use effectively.

In conclusion, board gamers like me will still be purchasing new titles for their collection, while staying on the lookout for upcoming trends and new gaming mechanics. The only limitation we will continue to face is sourcing these titles at an affordable price. I feel that the first company or companies capable of achieving this will dominate the local market for such games. Let’s hope someone out there will succeed in hitting on the right strategy as I am sure it will be a godsend for the hobby and local hobbyists alike.

In the meantime, signing off from BG Haven, have a great week!