Larry Levy:  The Curse of the Learning Curve, or Why Johnny Won’t Play Cleopatra

You don’t have to be a terribly close observer of the gaming scene to realize that the number of titles that appear each year is exploding.  More publishers, more designers, hailing from more countries—everything is growing in size.  While this is wonderful news as far as the health of the hobby is concerned, it does have some downsides.  One is that some gamers are getting overwhelmed by the sheer number of new games coming out.  Some have reacted by turning away from the new and the shiny and are spending more time with their old favorites.  Others still try to get in as much new gaming as possible, but find that the amount of time they can spend with each game is naturally reduced.

I’m finding another, more disturbing side effect of the glut of new games.  Because there is so much less time devoted to the newer titles, it seems that many gamers are unable or unwilling to look too deeply into games to find their nuances.  More and more, it seems that the worst thing a game can have is a learning curve.

This is hardly a new problem.  I remember Mike Siggins’ review of Euphrat & Tigris nine years ago for Sumo.  He mentioned that the game was hard to master and followed with an almost pleading comment that this was still regarded as a good thing, wasn’t it?  Lots of gamers have always preferred their games be more straightforward (it certainly adds to what’s usually called a “fun factorâ€?), but there has also always been a solid core of players who like a game that takes time to learn to play well.  They don’t all have to be like Die Macher or some monster war game, but I figured there was still a bunch of gamers who considered it fun to plumb the depths of an intricate game system (like Puerto Rico’s, for example) and finally master it.  Right?

Perhaps not.  At least, perhaps not as many of us feel that way anymore.  Maybe I’m overreacting, but it seems as if there are more and more games which are being dismissed after only one or two plays because they take longer than that to reveal their depths.  It’s as if we’re in such a rush to get to the next spanking new title that a game had better show its stuff early on, or it’s relegated to the trade pile.

I’ve noticed this with a number of this year’s new releases.  The poster child for this is probably Days of Wonder’s Cleopatra and the Society of Architects (hmm, there’s a learning curve just remembering the title!).  Once you get past the incredible bits, this doesn’t seem to be game that would have a learning curve, since it’s based on two very basic mechanics, card drafting and set collection.  Besides, it’s from the same company that brought us the King of the Gateway Games, Ticket to Ride.  But for me and just about everyone I’ve observed, it takes one game to learn to play this properly.  The problem is, because of the expectations, some players don’t give it the second chance it needs and I think this has much to do with the game’s mediocre ratings.  There are also complaints about excessive downtime, particularly with the placing of the mosaics.  While I can appreciate that some players might have problems with the spatial aspects, there really aren’t that many ways to place each tile, so once again, I’d expect this to improve (perhaps dramatically) with experience.  But what we seem to get most of all with this game are first impressions and in this case, they aren’t the greatest.

Another case in point is Augsburg 1520.  Again, our expectations lead us astray.  This is an auction game, pure and simple, and we all know how to play those, right?  However, this is a different kind of auction and it takes a while to figure out how to find the subtleties in the system (I still think I have a lot to learn).  The problem here isn’t as bad as with Cleopatra, because, after all, this is an Alea game, and we expect those to have a learning curve (are you starting to see a common thread here?).  But I’ve still seen a number of gamers criticize this for a high luck factor, when in fact, they hadn’t played the game enough to really figure out if the problem was luck or just their own suboptimal play.

Even a game like Jericho, which is a filler, has run afoul of the Curse.  Some have really skewered this game as being pointless and luck-ridden.  I admit, my first game was only so-so, but by my second, I really began seeing some nice tactical plays that could be used.  The problem, again, is expectations—no one expects a filler to have a learning curve.  I’m not as certain about this one as my other examples, as the game may still be a bit fragile (and no matter how well you play, luck will play a significant role).  But I’m pretty sure the game is much better than some of the critics have made it out to be.

Naturally, the Curse isn’t restricted to this year’s games.  Last year’s Antike is pretty highly rated, but a lot of folks have complained that the game can stagnate toward the end, as everyone scrambles to get that last VP.  Now, I’ve only played the game once, but based a little on that, and much more on the accounts of experienced players, once this issue is recognized, you adjust your play earlier in the game and plan just how you’re going to get to the necessary VP total.  Specifically, combat breaks out earlier, since if it doesn’t, stagnation will result, making it anyone’s ballgame at the end.  Again, experience is needed to see this, but players need to stick with the game long enough to figure it out.  It’s also true that a bit of a hint in the rules might have alerted first-time players to this, allowing them to enjoy the game on their initial play.

My final two examples are Alea’s back-to-back “debaclesâ€?, Mammoth Hunters and Fifth Avenue.  In the former case, my group was one of many guilty of playing this poorly the first time out of the box (we played our “goodâ€? cards early and our “badâ€? cards late, causing each round to stretch out).  Consequently, my first game lasted much longer than its listed duration.  Fortunately, I was advised on the better way to play (since it’s the late plays each round that really matter, you might as well play the bad cards early on and build up a nice supply of rocks for later on).  It still wasn’t a game I rated particularly highly (too much chaos for my tastes), but at least it didn’t take as long as a real Ice Age.  So, a game partially resurrected by additional plays, although again, a small hint in the rules might have helped us out in our first game (even though I admit that the “correctâ€? way of playing isn’t particularly rocket science).

The “problemâ€? with Fifth Avenue was an even starker illustration of “First Timer’s Impatienceâ€?.  Early reports at the Gathering, where the game debuted, were that the game was hopelessly broken (always be suspicious when the B word is thrown around) and that it ended before it even got started.  It turned out that, yes, if you place businesses willy-nilly, the game will end with very little (and possibly no) scoring.  But since this didn’t actually let you score Victory Points, the question was why anyone would think this was a good thing to do.  This had to be one of the most pervasive cases of groupthink (or, to be more precise, conthink) that I’ve ever encountered.  One simple warning from the player who taught us the game, along with the helpful hint that you need to form temporary alliances in order to win, was all we needed to have a very enjoyable first session.  Sadly, I don’t think Fifth Avenue has really recovered from its star-crossed debut and that’s a shame.  However, I have to put at least a little bit of the blame at Alea’s doorstep.  The “place businesses until the game endsâ€? fiasco probably couldn’t have been anticipated, but this is a non-intuitive design.  Given the increasing importance of first impressions to more and more gamers, a few hints in the rules about the way to approach the first game might have made all the difference in the world for this title.

I’m actually probably a strange choice to be raising this issue.  I usually much prefer tactical games to strategic ones and those titles rarely have a deep learning curve.  Moreover, I really don’t play the kinds of games that are usually thought of as being very deep, like Civ (played it a lot back in the day, but not anymore) or your average wargame.  Heck, I don’t even play E&T that often.  But even though I don’t usually subject games to deep study, I still appreciate a design that only reveals its secrets gradually and where each succeeding game lets you see more and more depth.  No doubt I’ll never reach tournament level play with them, but I still love games like Puerto Rico, Age of Steam, Stephenson’s Rocket, and Goa, games where part of the joy and the challenge is slowly learning how to master the concepts and work the system to your advantage.  These are all great games and their learning curve is one of the things that makes them great.  It would be a shame if companies stopped publishing games like this just because we’re all in too much of a hurry to get to the next game to take the time to learn them.

So I have a couple of requests of the gaming world I’d like to make.  First, to the publishers and designers out there:  keep in mind that your audience has more choice of games and less time to play them than ever before.  I know the common wisdom has always been that you should let players discover the subtleties of a game for themselves, and I still believe that’s a great part of learning to play a game.  But you still might consider throwing in a few more hints for good play in the rules, particularly when the strategies aren’t particularly intuitive or they go against expectations.  You might find the early word of mouth is a lot more positive and sales might very well increase.

And to my fellow gamers, a simple plea:  try to have a little more patience with the new games.  I yield to no one in my love of the new and shiny and I’m in as much of a hurry to try the latest design as anyone.  But I also always try to play a game at least twice (and preferably more), just to see if I may have missed something the first time.  And when a game clearly shows the promise of depth, I’m more than willing to give it time to reach its potential.  So try to look beyond the snap judgments.  Consider the quality of the game’s designer and publisher and ask if they really would release the game if it’s as bad as it first appears to you.  Check out a review or two on the Geek if you’re just not grokking the game.  Then, if it’s still not working for you (and not every game will work for every gamer), toss it aside and bring the new one on.  But you also may find, on your second look, a game you truly love and one you came this close to never playing again.

Meeples Choice Award Update

The spielfrieks user group has finished the nominating process and has winnowed the list of 148 games down to 24 finalists.  Next week, we’ll be voting on the top three games, which will be hailed as the Meeples Choice Award winners for 2005.  If you want to join us, just visit the spielfrieks user group on Yahoo.  Here are the nominated games for the final MCA vote:

* Antike
* Ark
* Beowulf
* Caylus
* China
* Diamant
* Elasund
* Fjords
* Hacienda
* Hey!  That’s my Fish!
* Il Principe
* Indonesia
* Kreta
* Louis XIV
* Manila
* Palazzo
* Railroad Tycoon
* Roma
* Shadows over Camelot
* Ticket to Ride:  Europe
* Tower of Babel
* Twilight Struggle
* Ubongo
* Vegas Showdown

Comments:

< Back Home