Larry Levy:  I LIKE CHILI!

I’ve been in love with games literally since I climbed down from the highchair.  But the kinds of games that really grabbed me and changed my life, which we call Eurogames these days, I’ve only been playing those for less than ten years.  Still, that’s enough time to figure out one’s likes and dislikes, particularly for someone as introspective as I am, who is also in the habit of writing about those preferences every couple of weeks.  So it’s pretty surprising when I discover something new about my tastes in gaming.

The subject of this revelation is variety, which is also where the title for this column comes from.  I fondly remember one of the Ziggy cartoon strips from about 20 years ago.  After a typical series of stressful occurrences in his life, the little Everyman muses in the last panel, “I know that variety is the spice of life, but who ordered chili?”

Well it turns out, I did.  It’s no mystery that I crave variety in most aspects of my life, including food, books, and music.  (Thankfully, that doesn’t extend to women, as my wife and I just celebrated our seventeenth wedding anniversary.) And I definitely prefer a wide variety of gaming.  It’s very rare that our group plays the same game more than once in a session, and that’s just fine with me.  If I really like a game, I might play it a half dozen times over the course of a year; if I’m insanely fond of it, it might get up to ten plays.  But I’m not one of those who wants to play the same game over and over until I master it.  And this is good, because there’s always too many new games that I want to try, feeding my love of variety.

But when it comes to individual games, I hadn’t thought that variety was that important to me.  For example, I tend to avoid expansions, usually being happy with the original game that came in the box.  I love Age of Steam, but until recently, the only version of it I had played was the original Rust Belt map.  In contrast, I’ve seen Valerie and Dale play half a dozen expansions in one session.  Nor have I played any of the many Power Grid expansions—in fact, I still don’t think I’ve played the German map that came with the game!  I played with the Puerto Rico expansion buildings once, thought they were nice, but then went back to the basic buildings, which I thought were better balanced and gave me all the game I wanted.  So for an specific game, variety wasn’t essential; if the game was good enough, I was very happy to play with the same basic rules each and every time.

That’s still true, but it turns out that when games provide a very varied experience, when they play very differently each time, it can be very attractive to me.  The first game I noticed this with is Through the Ages.  The main attraction for me was the innovative mechanics, great gameplay, and wonderfully executed theme.  But as I started logging games, I became equally entranced with how differently each of them played.  Part of that was the huge number of cards available (365!).  But the game’s design deliberately encourages this variety with the way that cards are drafted and Military cards are drawn.  Even the early stages of each contest has a different feel from game to game because of the effect of the initial leaders and wonders.  This really ramped up my enjoyment of the design, to the point where I now consider it one of my favorite games of all time.

Exhibit B is the star witness for the defense, Agricola.  One of the things that attracted to me to this game when it was first announced was the fact that each player only sees 14 cards each game out of the more than 300 provided.  After I’d preordered it, a member of my games group asked why I was taking a chance on the game.  When I told him about the number of cards it included, he was horrified.  He likes elegant, self-contained designs, and a game with that many cards, each with its own special rules, was complete anathema to him.  His reaction was so strong, I began to wonder why this appealed to me so much, particularly since I hate games where you’re constantly reading special text on the cards you draw (the dreaded Chez Geek syndrome).  But it’s different when you get all your cards at the start of the game—everyone reads through their allotment, plans their strategy, and then there’s little downtime after that.

And this element has proven to be even better than I had anticipated.  The cards you receive truly make every game different, with a different approach and different strategies.  It was my enjoyment of this aspect of the game that made me finally understand that I’m a fan of chili after all.

The final recent game that has solidified this in my mind is my other current favorite, Brass.  This has nothing like the huge variety of Agricola.  But if you had just read the rules, you might think that this would be a game that plays very similarly each time out.  After all, the players have the whole board to play to and there’s almost no random elements.  The only thing keeping the players from acting with total freedom is the cards they receive.  But given that some of these cards can be used in multiple locations and that most of the actions don’t even use the cards, it wasn’t obvious that this would be enough to keep the game out of “perfect strategy” rut.  But, as it turns out, the cards have a huge effect on how each game plays.  It’s subtle, but very real.  And I find I like the game much more this way than if lacked this unpredictability.

Looking back at some of the games I’ve always liked, I can see signs of my craving for varied play.  For example, I’ve always liked card games and many games that feature cards include this aspect.  They may be traditional games like Bridge or Euros like Louis XIV.  But in both cases, the players receive a hand of cards at the start of a round and have to figure out the best way they can play it.  Things may not go as planned, so you have to have backup plans and be able to adjust.  But this is essentially the same sort of skill that is needed in Agricola (except that in that game, you also have the option of not even playing the cards).  Hand to hand strategic planning—I love it, and what makes it truly appealing is the great variety of hands that you can be presented with.

Another example is San Marco, also a great favorite of mine.  Splitting the cards for you and an opponent is a hugely enjoyable exercise for me.  But what really makes the process work is the great variety of cards you can be dealt, so that each group you pick up is a different sort of problem.  Combine that with the situation on the board and with the limit cards and you truly will not see the same situation more than once.  Again, the inherent variety that the cards provide makes this a top flight game in my eyes.

So why, if I enjoy variety in these games, am I not snapping up every expansion that hits the market?  I think it has to do with the types of changes I enjoy.  The variety provided by the cards in Through the Ages and Agricola is tactical and works within the respective game systems.  Each game feels different, but it’s still the same game.  The intent of most expansions, though, is to more drastically alter the base system.  For example, the differences between the base game of Knizia’s Lord of the Rings and the Friends & Foes expansion are considerable.  They really do convert it into a different game.  Every now and then, I find an expansion that improves a base game (or more to the point, completes it, giving it what should have been there to begin with)—Friends & Foes, the Inns & Cathedrals Carcassonne expansion, and the first Bohnanza expansion are some of the very small number that come to mind.  But in the vast majority of cases, I’m either happy with the original game or have no interest in trying to improve a game that didn’t work for me out of the box.  The people who really enjoy expansions are the ones that play a game so much that they need new twists on the original, to provide a needed change.  But it’s very rare that I play a game so much that I feel I’ve mastered it, even when it’s one of my all-time favorites.

So I’ll leave the expansions to the rest of the gaming world and be satisfied with my new appreciation for games like Agricola.  I’ll also take some delight in a new insight of my own gaming preferences.  Now, would you mind passing me that bowl of cheddar cheese—my chili’s getting cold!

© 2007 Larry Levy

---

Comments:

You must register with BGN in order to comment. Registration is free!

Larry, You should give a game called “Monopoly” a go some time.  Now THAT’s some variety.  : ) Ryan B. Posted by Ryan Bretsch on Dec 22, 2007 at 08:36 AM | #

Well then you should move to Austin. Cause there is no chili like Texas Chili! Mike C.— Posted by Michael Chapel on Dec 22, 2007 at 10:02 AM | #

When I saw the title of the article, I thought it was going to be about Twilight Struggle. Posted by Jonathan Takagi on Dec 22, 2007 at 11:45 AM | #

Yes, I agree Jonathan.  In fact, all of Larry’s columns should be about Twilight Struggle.  Regrettably, the man has never played the game.  ‘Tho in his defense, he did favor us with a play and nice review of 1960.  In any event Larry, the weird thing about this article is that I find myself in complete agreement.  Perhaps our tastes in gaming are melding in old age?  I think the variety that you refer to smacks of depth.  The fact that a game plays differently from game to game gives the sensation that there’s still tons to explore.  It seems to me, we had that same sensation with Puerto Rico for some time—until strategies became familiar and the game became a bit rote. Oddly enough, in the games you sight, the “variety” is created by a really simple mechanism—a little randomization of the startup.  In Agricola its the occupations and improvements, in Brass its the initial locations dealt, in Through the Ages its the monuments and leaders.  But that might also explain why I would rather play Age of Steam today than Puerto Rico.  AoS also has a random cube startup.  The initial networks follow those cubes, so any AoS can play very differently from game to game.  Whereas, at this stage, I think I have seen everything Puerto Rico has to offer.  That’s not a ding on Puerto Rico per se.  Its a marvelous design.  Just an acknowledgment that a bit of a random factor can keep a design fresher, longer.  Jason Posted by Jason Matthews on Dec 22, 2007 at 12:31 PM | #

Wonderful article, Larry. I love San Marco for the reasons you discussed. Also the board changes so dramatically from turn to turn. Often it renders the card split you created unbalanced. Another one that can change dramatically from turn to turn and seems different with every play is Maharaja. There it’s not cards but everyone secretly selecting 2 actions. The person just ahead of you can seriously alter the landscape and render your 2 secret actions worthless. I think I’ve only used the additional characters in Citadels once. I KNOW the other characters and how they relate to each other. I don’t feel like subjecting myself to a learning curve when I like the original characters just fine. I do use some of the new purple districts in every game, but I don’t know those as well, so one is as good as another. In general, I enjoy playing with new maps or tiles and learning a few new rules, but I’m far less likely to enjoy having to learn a lot of new characters and powers as they are described on a new set of cards. That seems to be the threshold for me regarding expansions. Posted by Steve Bennett on Dec 22, 2007 at 02:52 PM | #

Ryan, you’re right, I find myself with plenty of choices whenever I sit down to play Monopoly.  For example, should I dull the pain with shooters, scotch, or good old Mad Dog 20/20? Mike, since I prefer my chili *without* beans, I suspect I would adore it in Texas.  But I’d have to make sure they went easy on the chili peppers--I’m something of a tenderfoot. Jonathan, I had no idea what you were talking about with Twilight Struggle, then the penny dropped and I laughed out loud.  I had forgotten about GMT’s very politically incorrect typo. Jason, I don’t think depth is the whole answer.  I’m sure everyone will agree that Chess is a very deep game and it doesn’t have anything like the kind of variety I’m talking about.  Random starts can LEAD to depth, but they could just as easily lead to a bunch of shallow positions you have to optimize.  To give a weird example, there is a huge number of starting positions for every round of Ricochet Robot.  But there’s no “depth” in the game, just a lot of very enjoyable puzzles for the players to optimize. I *am* a fan of random starting positions, though, which might have been another early indicator of my chili fixation.  The first game that really impressed me with its random startup is my old favorite Borderlands, where 16 resource factories are randomly distributed among the 36 territories at the start of every game.  This has a very strong effect on strategy and makes every game play quite differently.  With this, Eon was just duplicating their successful experience with Cosmic Encounters; even with the original small collection of alien powers, randomly distributing them among the players meant the game played differently every time. Puerto Rico hasn’t become stale for me because I think its just as much fun anticipating what your opponents will do as it is planning strategies.  But I agree, all things being equal, you’re probably better off with a game that has some aspect of a random startup than one that doesn’t.  That’s my only real concern with Hamburgum--I can’t recall any random factor in it that would lead to differences in the play.  I’ve still only played once, but that’s something I’m going to keep my eye out for, to make sure it will have staying power. Posted by Larry Levy on Dec 22, 2007 at 03:00 PM | #

No I agree Larry, variety is not the same as depth.  It just tantilizes you with the prospect of it.  Sometimes it suggests it, but isn’t there.  There are games that hint at strategies to be uncovered, but really only have one or two.  However, it does seem that games with random starts tend to avoid having a “correct” strategy.  But as you intimate, there are exceptions to all of this in both directions. In any case, another classic game where the initial tiles impact the flow greatly is Die Macher.  Depending on how the states fall, the game has a radically different flow. Jason Posted by Jason Matthews on Dec 23, 2007 at 01:41 AM | #

I’m so with you in your love of variety in everything, Larry. My wife is the same way, and her cooking is always an adventure (in a good way).  My favorite Thai dish never tastes the same way twice, but it’s always incredible.  Sorry--your column’s title made me hungry (and was also a reminder of an unusual Christmas tradition with the family on my mother’s side--Oyster Stew and Chili!) On a gaming note, I’ve never played Puerto Rico with the expansion buildings, but couldn’t you also achieve that variability by selecting the buildings for each game randomly using the some of the orginals with the expansions?  That might have an effect of player’s “usual” strategies.  The variability in the cards you draw each game are what I like about San Juan. Posted by Jeff Allers on Dec 23, 2007 at 06:11 AM | #

I’m in agreement with you, but I also love expansions ... probably is part of my “catch them all” syndrome ... Your articles are always really good .. I hope in the future to have the honor and possibility to write something together ;-) anyway, just a little note ... Agricola in the box has already the game and expansions fitted together ... or your are just using only the first decks ? good play Liga Posted by Andrea Liga Ligabue on Dec 23, 2007 at 04:29 PM | #

Jeff:  I guess I could try that with Puerto Rico, but I don’t really have any desire to do so.  I feel the buildings are more central to the game than the cards are to Agricola, so a change like that would be a bigger thing and turn PR into a different game.  Besides, there seems to be some issues with balance when certain combinations are used. Liga:  I’ve used different combinations.  At first, I combined decks (it never occurred to me not to).  The last couple of games have just used one deck--a game with just the I deck (to see what that was like) and a game just with the E deck (because there were some inexperienced players).  I’m not sure I see the difference.  In fact, the E deck game had the only truly unbalanced hand I’ve seen in my plays (the fellow with the great hand beat us by 19 points).  So I’ll probably just go along with how the other players want to do it.  The one thing I haven’t tried yet are the K cards, since some of them seem to require more experience to use well. Posted by Larry Levy on Dec 23, 2007 at 05:45 PM | #

< Back Home