|
|
|
|
Musings on… Micheal Schacht (#33)
Musings on… Micheal Schacht (#33)
Edited By David Fair
April 4, 2006
Welcome to Musings On..., which is a moderated discussion group in which a bunch of well known, dedicated gamers discuss and debate different games and topics regarding games. In this particular article, they discuss the games of designer Micheal Schacht.
David Fair:
Michael Schacht is one of my favorite designers. His games frequently lean toward the tactical over the strategic, something I usually don’t prefer, but he usually pulls things off so elegantly that I become enamored of the game anyway.
Most of his games have a tendency to be somewhat drier than the average designer game, but that isn’t something that bothers me overmuch.
Larry Levy:
Michael Schacht remains a very promising designer, but in my opinion, he has yet to create a great game. He has come close-- Hansa, Web of Power, and Industria are all very good, but there’s been nothing that I would truly mourn if it were removed from my game collection. His designs are reminiscent of a young Reiner Knizia’s and the comparison is often made. Yet while he certainly is as prolific as Knizia was at that stage of his career (as Dave’s list of games illustrates; keep in mind, his first published game only appeared in 1998), Knizia produced Modern Art and Quo Vadis only two years after his first published games. I don’t think Schacht is quite up to that level yet. Maybe he never will be, but in the meantime, he has created his share of fine games.
Schacht’s specialty is the shorter game. Some of his games are fillers, but he also has a lot of middle range games, with durations from 30 to 60 minutes. His games are rarely heavy, although some have strategies which are hard to grasp because the mechanics are so tightly interwound. He is fond of auction games and placement games, but really, he has dabbled in just about every genre and theme.
All told, I have played 19 of Schacht’s designs. Only four of those are ones that I’d actively avoid. On the other hand, I would really only seek out about half of the ones I’ve played. Thus, at this stage of his career, I consider Schacht to be a sound designer, adept at his craft, but still one with as many hits as misses. His games are good enough to try out, but I don’t expect them to be special. I believe he has the talent to raise the level of his games that one extra notch that would put him in the realm of the true designing superstars. Until then, I’ll try his games when the opportunity presents itself, but won’t despair if one should pass me by.
Mark Jackson:
I wish I had something interesting to say about Michael Schacht as a game designer - some sort of carefully thought out sweeping thought about his games. But I don’t. All I’ve got it is that I really like some of his games and quickly burn out on some of his other games (and, that he’s a nice guy in a couple of e-mail exchanges we’ve had).
I think one of Michael Schacht’s strengths is his ability to twist known genres (speed games, auction games, etc.) into new shapes.
Alex Rockwell:
Interestingly, I tend to dislike Schacht games. So strong is this trend that I have now learned to avoid his games. I don’t feel they are bad games, or that he is a bad designer. They simply contain mechanics that I have seen many times before, or I don’t find very interesting.
I do like Fist of Dragonstones, however, that was a collaboration. My favorite of his games is probably Industria, but after a while I grew annoyed with the strange auction system and began to wish it was fairer, and did not sometimes result in screwing someone out of their income turn, giving extra income to the player after them, at the choice of the other players.
I find them to be average games that don’t particularly interest me or offer something I haven’t played before. I liked a couple of them at first, when I was very new to board games, but after I had seen the variety of mechanics that euro games offer, they lost their interest to me.
Morgan Dontanville:
It is hard to pin down how I feel about Michael Schacht. I guess he is most like really cheap champagne for me, hard to swallow, awfully dry, and leaves a bad taste in my mouth, that said sometimes the bubbles are nice. Without a doubt I feel that Schacht is both on the forefront of innovation, and partially responsible for people finding Euros so cold and calculating. The only other designer that comes close to being this hit or miss for me is Leo Colovini (and even he has a better record).
David Fair:
Kardinal & König is my favorite Schacht game, and my favorite game for 3. It is an area majority game at heart, but the card draw requires flexible tactics and the advisor-connection-majorities vs. chains-of-houses vs. majorities-of-houses three way tug-of-war for scoring makes every game unique and gives many ways to score and win.
China is re-theme of Kardinal & König, and it also changed the rules slightly. One thing I like about this version of the game is the two different boards, each geared toward play with a differing number of players. The other changes were to scoring, which changes the strategy of the game somewhat, but works well, and to the card flipping mechanism, allowing you to draw from 4 face-up cards rather than just 2. This is not a change I like, as it just makes it all too easy to get exactly the cards you need. It removes some of the needed tension from the game. I have not played with the cut-and-play expansion yet.
Larry Levy:
Web of Power - The quintessential “short game that plays like a long game”. In fact, this high “bang for the buck” ratio is the principal reason the game usually gets suggested in my group; it’s the perfect choice when you have 3 or 4 players and only 30 to 45 minutes to play. I find the game enjoyable, but consider it a bit too luck heavy and abstract to rise to greatness in my book. Still, this is the game of Schacht’s that I’d most often recommend to other gamers. Although I play this most often with 3, it may be better with 4 players, but it works well with both numbers. I haven’t had the chance to play its sequel, China, yet.
Richelieu - I’ve only played once, but that was enough to see that this is a quality two-player game. It’s rating could definitely rise if I had the chance to play it more.
Mark Jackson:
Kardinal & Konig/Web of Power: While David likes it with three, I think it works with 3-5 players… and actually has a very good 2-player variant in Das Duell, which involves a third color alternately controlled by each player. (It also has three one-time action cards for each player - timing the play of these cards is vital to winning.)
I think what makes K&K so well-liked is that it offers so much gaming “bang” in relation to the length of the game. You don’t expect a 45 minute game to pack as much oomph as this one…
Richelieu is a reworking of the multi-player Kardinal & Konig card game for two players, and is the better of the two games. I’m not usually a fan of perfect information games, yet there is something strangely addictive about the way you pull tiles & plot your strategy in this game. (Yes, I know that this is not strictly a perfect information game, due to the “law” tokens, but it’s darn close.)
Morgan Dontanville:
My history with his games has been an extreme experiment in testing the boundaries of my taste. The first game of his that I tried was Kardinal & König. This came at a time where I was getting back into board games pretty intensely. I just discovered the geek and some new friends that were into the whole Euro thing and this kept popping up as a must try game. One of my friends had this and we gave it a go. I think that perhaps this was my first disappointment in the vanguard wave of gaming.
I hadn’t really experienced a game so plodding and systematic before. It wasn’t a question of whether or not it worked, but rather where the fun was in playing it. The game was a bit of a mystery to me. I had such a good run of liking the games that I’d tried that this just stood out as a kooky anomaly. So, I played it again. Then I discovered BSW and played it there. People kept raving about how great the game was and I recognized how the pieces fit, but I just continually came away from it feeling cold. This is the game where I realized that taste is as relevant in games as it is in music or film. KuK proved to me that there is no definitive “good”, a concept that Carcassonne and E&T would later reaffirm.
I thought that Richelieu was neat, but not overwhelmingly exciting. In a strange way it reminds me of what it would be like if two people were playing free cell together. It is more a neat competitive puzzle.
Then China came out. I figured I’d give the system another chance. This was supposedly improved. Now the cards instead of being an irritant make the game too easy. The only strategy to the card play is to just get cards to give you wild combos over and over again. I think they should have just scrapped the cards entirely and given two action points. You can place one in a new region or two in a region you are already in. Ta-da! Why waste time on the silly cards? I destroyed everyone playing this and couldn’t be more bored.
David Fair:
Hansa is an extremely good tactical game that plays great with 4. The game is quite tactical, and there is almost no ability (and indeed, almost no need) for a long-term strategy. It is a great game that plays in under an hour and offers some difficult decisions. With Kardinal & Konig and Dschunke, rounds out my 3 favorite Schacht games.
Larry Levy:
Hansa - A very good and unique delivery game. The game is extremely tactical (although you can still often make some strategic choices of what aspect of the game to emphasize at any given time). I’ve only played with three, but it seems to play very well with that number and I wonder if the loss of control with four would be too keenly felt. The game presents a definite learning curve, but packs a lot of decisions into its one hour playing time.
Morgan Dontanville:
A friend of mine picked it up and somehow convinced me to play it. Against all prejudices I loved it. I thought it wonderful how all the pieces fit together, where everything was a resource for each of the other resources, and the great cue-ball effect of the ship. This game was brilliant, and more importantly, fun.
I had an ex-girlfriend that owned all of the worst albums by many of my favorite artists. When we talked about the music that I liked she was nonplussed about many of the bands. After seeing her collection I figured out why, she had an uncanny ability to randomly buy the worst of a band. After Hansa, I saw the likelihood that this must have happened to me with experience of Michael Schacht’s designs.
Mark Jackson:
Both good & bad have been said about Hansa - for me, I just felt like there was sort of an interesting game there, but I didn’t enjoy myself playing it. ‘Nuff said.
David Fair:
Dschunke: A great game that I always enjoy despite the presence of blind-bidding, a mechanism I normally despise. This is an often-overlooked gem of a game that deserves more exposure. Nine-tenths of the game doesn’t involve blind-bidding so a good game isn’t ruined, at least not for me. Best with 4 players.
Larry Levy:
Dschunke - Another pretty opaque game. I’ve only played it a few times, and while I’ve enjoyed them all, I really don’t feel as if I have any kind of grasp of the strategy. I would probably appreciate this more if I had the chance to play it more often.
Morgan Dontanville:
I really wanted to like it, but again I found it cold and calculating where you must spend intensive thought into planning your moves than then throw it into the meat grinder of absolute chaos and see what happens. Win or lose I found each round more and more frustrating and irritating.
Mark Jackson:
Morgan hits Dschunke squarely on the head with his comments. It’s one of those “sound & fury, signifying nothing” kind of games that give me a headache.
Look, there’s nothing wrong with blind-bidding - I’m a fan of Sky Runner & San Francisco, both of which contain pretty substantial amounts of BB. It’s a frustrating mechanism, however, in a game that requires a lot of plotting & planning.
David Fair:
Don: Unplayed as of yet, but the unique and bizarre auction/payout methods in the game make me what to give it a try.
Industria: A terrific game of auctions, planning, and tough decisions. We played it a lot when it first came out, and still manage to get it to the table occasionally.
Larry Levy:
Don - Another auction game that packs a bit of a wallop in a short time span. Not as good as Mogul, as an unlucky break at the end can really hose you, but it features another innovative auction method. A good solid filler.
Industria - A very interesting auction game. Like Hansa, the best strategy is pretty hard to grasp. I’m not completely sold on its replayability, but I’ve enjoyed my games to date. Seems to play best with four (and the last player really isn’t at a disadvantage with that number).
Mark Jackson:
Don & Industria are both games I’ve enjoyed… but not enough to own (or keep) copies of them. They do some tricky things with auction mechanisms that will delight auction fans and frustrate those who don’t want “all auctions, all the time”. (Someone mentioned earlier that Don can, in the words of Alan Parsons, hinge on “the turn of a friendly card” late in the game… agreed. Though it’s a short enough game that I’m not sure that’s really a flaw.)
David Fair:
Architekton is a decent little tile-laying game. Unfortunately, it is very similar in feel to Fjorde, which I greatly prefer, so I rarely play this. Still, it is a very solid design. Great components.
Michael J. Pennisi:
From what I could tell Architekton seemed a lot like Fjords. I agree that California looks really interesting.
David Fair:
Kontor: A game I have always wanted to try. I have the whole set of expansions and have spent many hours cutting and pasting making player aids and printing translations… I may have spent way more time getting this one ready to play than any other game I own. I may actually get this to the table soon, as we have a 2-player games only night planned.
Morgan Dontanville:
Soon after, I played Kontor. Again this game suffers from the usual flaws of being systematic and soulless. After we played the game, we were hard pressed to find any reason to knock it, other than the fact that it was lifeless.
Mark Jackson:
I don’t find Kontor “lifeless” - but I think you have to get past the initial game & get into the scenarios (there are a number of them in the rules & even more up on Michael Schacht’s website) pretty quickly.
David Fair:
Fist of Dragonstones: The kids who attend the Boardgame Summer Camp my wife runs love this game. I read the rules and refused to play. Ugh, blind bidding.
Larry Levy:
Fist of Dragonstones - One of the better blind bidding games out there, thanks to the clever use of “fairy gold” (which is replenished at the end of each round). Thus, losing a bid is only temporarily painful, which makes the blind bidding a lot more palatable to me. The rest of the game has some clever touches as well. The only real drawback is that it can drag at the end and this is a game that can only support a short duration. Still, it’s a pretty good effort. (Dave, if your only concern is the blind bidding, I’d recommend you try it out--you might be pleasantly surprised.)
Morgan Dontanville:
I ended up with Fist of Dragonstones, a game I actively avoided both for the designer and the name. Any of you boys up for some Fists? But, it found its way into my collection. I was pleasantly surprised. For a blind bidding Schacht game it brought the fun. The faerie gold was a great innovation and somehow Schacht seemed to reel in Faidutti’s chaos.
David Fair:
Hispaniola: Attempted to play this once. It was so bad we called the game about a third of the way through.
Larry Levy:
Hispaniola - Some interesting ideas, but there seemed to be far too little control. There are plenty of better games that play around with the foundations of trick-taking.
Morgan Dontanville:
Hispaniola is fun with fun people, but unless you are only playing this with three people, the game itself just feels like a waste until the last 4 tricks in a hand.
David Fair:
Magna Grecia: I have not gotten this to the table yet. I would really like to play as both the theme and rules intrigue me, but it just hasn’t happened yet.
Larry Levy:
Magna Grecia - A very abstract (and very yellow) game, but one with some very interesting mechanics. It’s really too dry for me to ever love, but I’ll gladly play it if asked.
Morgan Dontanville:
I was back to being done with Schacht. Really. Then I saw Magna Grecia on a table for $10. What could it hurt? So I gave it a go, and ended up really liking this one. Albeit it is as cold and clinical as any of his other games but there is a sense of growth and movement here. There is a grace to it as you act like a virus in other people’s regions. There is a wonderful racing feel as you try to get all over the board. So, Schacht fooled me again.
Mark Jackson:
Crazy Chicken (now published in the US by Simply Fun as Drive) is a nifty little card game that reminds me a bit of Lost Cities and Schotten-Totten. For once, the theme fits (the primary mechanism is an extended game of scoring “chicken"). It also works nicely with 2-4 players. (Originally published as a 2 player game, I think it is most interesting - and most cutthroat - with two. With three or four, the game becomes a little more based on luck of the draw, but it’s still enjoyable to play.)
David Fair:
Paris Paris: Another Schacht game I own but always fail to get to the table. I need to try harder as it is very well received.
Larry Levy:
Paris Paris - Like The Hollywood Card Game, it seems to play better when you play quickly, rather than work out all the ramifications of your move. This makes it light rather than heavy, but also pleasant rather than unplayed. For me, it’s a take it or leave it game.
Morgan Dontanville:
The next game I tried of Schacht’s was Paris Paris. I found it shallow and inane. It seemed the best choices were obvious and the ramifications of your choices unpredictable round to round. It was all the rage on BSW and I kept getting roped into game after game of it. It was a time where I was spending way too much time there…
Ironically, I also played Schlauer Bauer a couple times and thought it a solid kids game, just not one that can be enjoyed by adults.
So, outside of my initial displeasure somehow I kept playing the first two games. Then, thanks to the geek, I discovered that these two games were by the same designer. This clearly defined my feelings about Schacht’s designs.
I decided that I should actively avoid his work from that point on.
Mark Jackson:
Thank you, Morgan - once again, you make me feel like I’m not alone in going “How in thee heck did this get published?” I’ve played face to face a number of times, and then 20 or so times against the online version with AI, and I never felt like I was getting “better” at the game. “In Russia, the game plays you” is all well & good if it’s a lot of fun (see Dungeonquest)… but in something as dry & uninteresting as Paris Paris - blech.
A number of Schacht’s games cause me to wonder how they were ever published… Böse Buben is the first of these. While it has some interesting card play decisions, off-putting card art & dry gameplay condemned it to my trade pile after two plays.
David Fair:
Rat Hot: I first played this as the homemade Dschunke-Das Legespiel, and it became one of my favorite 2-player games. The published version has simplified and clarified the scoring, and the more professionally made tiles look better as well. A great two-player tile-laying game that moves into 3 dimensions.
Morgan Dontanville:
At Essen I got a chance to play Rat Hot and really liked the concept of it, although the “three rats"/automatically losing thing was absurd. When I got home I ended up playing the original quite a bit. I think that the Dschunke tile game is one of the best two player games out there.
David Fair:
Sushi Express: Played once at Essen this year. Was not impressed at all, and passed on it. It is a combination push-your-luck game and set collection game. It was eminently forgettable.
Mark Jackson:
It only took one play of Piratenpoker to realize that I never needed to play it again… now, Herr Schacht has published a variant on his site (which I think that I posted to the Geek) that supposedly helps, but I haven’t been interested in trying again.
Larry Levy:
Mogul - This is a little gem of a bidding game, but only with low numbers (3 or 4). With too many players, the lack of control makes this far too random. But with less, you feel as if you can predict what your opponents will do and that makes the game work. The “bid or take the pot” auction system (later featured in Geschenkt) works very well and drop outs for financial reasons are common, since money is tight. This may be Schacht’s most underrated game.
Michael J. Pennisi:
Mogul is a simple auction game with a delightfully nasty bidding system. It’s great fun to stare down someone you are bidding against, wondering if you’ll hurt him more by dropping the bid (and taking his money) or by staying in and winning a stock card.
Larry Levy:
InterUrban - A little known tile-laying game, due to its drab Winsome graphics, but like most Winsome games, it features some good gameplay. Decidedly abstract and a bit repetitious, but still a pretty good game.
Mark Jackson:
Draco & Co. is a gussied-up version of Die Tafelrunde - and neither of them are worth the time you have to commit to playing them. They are chaotic & remind me a bit of Munchkin, which is NEVER a good thing.
Michael J. Pennisi:
Draco and Company never felt like more than a Guillotine knock off to me. It’s not bad but not great.
Larry Levy:
The Hollywood Card Game - It has one basic clever idea (the counter laying rules) that might make the game work. For this to truly be a filler, you have to play it pretty fast, which kind of eliminates studying the ramifications of your moves. Still, this could be interesting if played slowly and scholarly (or it could just be a drag).
Morgan Dontanville:
Recently, I played The Hollywood Card Game. I found this system to work entirely contrary to the previous Faidutti/Schacht combo. Whereas before, they reined each other in; now in this game it demonstrates each of their worst flaws. I quite enjoy many of Faidutti’s designs as he tends to focus on fun, but he himself acknowledges his joy of chaos. So what you get is a cold calculating over-thinky filler that requires some heavy planning in order to not to get screwed out of the game. Then you get to see what happens when your plans fall into chaotic disarray.
Larry Levy:
Isis & Osiris - Way too little control. Avoid.
Mark Jackson:
Isis & Osiris reminds me of one of good friend’s “rules” of dating: “There are some girls who are so stunningly beautiful that you NEVER want them to start talking & dispel the illusion.” In the case of I&O, you should only look at the gorgeous components & avoid playing the game.
Larry Levy:
Knights - I like dice games, but this one took WAY too long. By the end of the game, we were praying for someone to win and stop the madness. The central idea is good, but the duration is three times longer than it should be.
Mark Jackson:
Larry is correct - Knights would be a very enjoyable game if it took 20 minutes. With more than 3 players, it often cruises toward 45-60 minutes & inspires stupid play in order for the game to simply end.
Larry Levy:
Station Manager - A total ripoff, from my way of thinking. A completely bland and nothing card game whose only function seems to have been to provide a third game for a train game trilogy (alongside such worthwhile games as Mogul and Crazy Race). Schacht is too talented to produce drek like this.
Morgan Dontanville:
I played Station Manager, and found it to be a boring, uninspired contract rummy.
Mark Jackson:
Station Manager is, like a couple of folks have already said, just another rummy variant. I don’t dislike it as much as they do, but I don’t think it’s a particularly good game. (And the card art is difficult to read, as it is in pastel colors with thin line art. Sigh.)
Larry Levy:
Crazy Race - A race game with blind bidding sounds like anathema to me, but there are enough clever things in the rules to make this consistently fun. The blind bidding does eventually drag it down, but it’s still a game I don’t mind playing. The original game with the bizarre creatures makes more sense and is more fun than the train game version.
Mark Jackson:
Larry’s comments about Crazy Race are spot on… until the last part. :-) While I think the monster theme of the original cut-n-play edition is better, there are some scoring changes for the train edition that tighten up the game a bit.
Morgan Dontanville:
Gods: Well, back to the old Schacht again. Random tile flips breed lucky winners, the rest of the game is a cold, calculating puzzle, where you see who you can attack to hurt the worst.
Michael J. Pennisi:
I do feel like many of Schacht’s titles are on the dry side. Even Hansa, which so many people like, just comes off as a little dull. It’s a great design in terms of mechanics. I like the gold-as-action-points idea. Nevertheless I find myself playing the game and thinking “meh”.
Shannon Appelcline:
I’m pretty fond of Michael Schacht too, and he was the subject of an article over at Gone Gaming as a result. (http://boredgamegeeks.blogspot.com/2006/02/three-collaborative-designers-faidutti.html) I’ve played 8 of his games (I think) and three of them receive my top ratings for gameplay: China, Coloretto, and Hansa.
I like Larry’s category of “short game that plays like a long game” because Schacht’s games fit that exact niche for me too. I play for 45 minutes, but then feel like I had a really full gaming experience.
However I note in Larry’s comment that he several times mentions that strategy is hard to grasp. After a half-dozen games I feel like I have a very basic grasp on the strategy of China/K&K, but I haven’t had the same revelation after a similar number of games of Hansa, and that worries me a bit. Is there actual solid strategy there, or is there a large random factor that’s overpowering the intelligent gameplay?
David Fair:
Coloretto (& Coloretto - die Extrakarten, Coloretto Zwei Neue Uebersichtskarten): For a long time, this was the filler of choice for me. It is a good enough game with some push-your-luck elements, and it plays quickly. But, ultimately, we have stopped playing it almost completely. I think the decisions just became too rote, and the general feeling of it being far easier to attempt to hose someone else than to help yourself. I have played
with both of the cut-and-play expansions, one of which alters the scoring cards, making some sweet spots appear, and the other of which changes the length of some of the card sets created. I believe there are also some action cards we did not use.
Coloretto Amazonas (& Coloretto Amazonas - Erweiterung): I bought this when it first came out, but with the general souring on Coloretto in my group, we have not gotten it to the table. I don’t even know if it bears any similarity to Coloretto, or just shares the name, but it keeps getting vetoed either way.
Larry Levy:
Coloretto - Pretty interesting when played with three. With any more, it’s pleasant, but awfully random.
Coloretto Amazonas - I’ve never played this, but just wanted to mention to Dave that it has nothing in common with Coloretto--they just wanted to piggyback on the title of a popular game.
Morgan Dontanville:
I played Coloretto and felt like it was a game based solely around spoiling anything worthwhile that anyone else would want. The winner is the one that was hurt the least by the card draws.
Michael J. Pennisi:
Morgan wrote, “I played Coloretto and felt like it was a game based solely around spoiling anything worthwhile that anyone else would want. The winner is the one that was hurt the least by the card draws.” Well, I have to disagree with you (no surprise for us eh?) on this one. I like this game because it works on two levels. It’s either a very light, portable card game to play with non-gamers or it’s a thoughtful card game that requires you to pay attention to what you opponents are collecting, estimate probabilities, and to manipulate other players which is the part I really like. You can make the other players “dance like a marionette” by sweetening one of the piles you don’t want just enough to make another player want to take it. This gives you more opportunities and less competition for the remaining draws. Sure you can get screwed with bad draws occasionally, but win or lose, I enjoy the mind games I play with people ("why did Mike just put two colors I need on the same pile?").
Morgan Dontanville:
Michael, I’ve heard of people playing Coloretto differently, but I’ve never seen it in play. Here’s what would happen in our group:
Morgan puts down two of the same color for Dan to take it. Dan takes it. John goes “AAAAGGGGHHH! Why would you do that?!” “Um, so he is out of the bidding” “But you just gave it to him” “Well, yeah.” “Fine, now we both will lose. Take that.” “Fine. Take that”
Dan wins.
Shannon Appelcline:
I can’t imagine it’s the games fault if you and/or John are playing sub-par-ly.
When I’ve played Coloretto it’s a fine mix of making a draft just good enough for someone else to take it, and thus take away cards that you don’t want, and not giving them too much.
Morgan Dontanville:
Yes, well the flaw in that argument is that you aren’t taking into accounts both human nature and sheer luck.
Let’s say I set Dan up, then I set John up now I’ve got the free run of the draw, if it is good I’m stoked, if not my position is now quite far behind. Perhaps if everyone plays this way I may be given something good because I am no longer the perceived threat but if other’s see how I’d failed in gaining from this strategy, I can’t see everyone volunteering for it.
Then there are other psychological aspects to that kind of play that often falls apart. That is why there are game theories around this kind of dilemma. Check out something like: The Prisoner’s Dilemma: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_Dilemma The Stag Hunt: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stag_hunt The Centipede Game: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centipede_game
Michael J. Pennisi:
Very interesting reads especially the Stag Hunt, which I was unfamiliar with. I can definitely see elements of that scenario in Coloretto although the multi-player aspect definitely adds layers of complexity.
I completely agree that this isn’t a tremendously deep game (either that or it’s so deep that it is above all of our heads and we are drowning in its brilliance) but it does have the easy play & psychological aspects that make it a good gateway game. It shines in that role. It may seem silly but the portability of this game shouldn’t be overlooked. I think the reason I like having Coloretto in my collection is because I can put it in a box and play it almost anywhere (real examples: train station, comedy club, in line at the movies, Steak & Shake, flyball tournament, camping, boat ) with almost anyone. And yeah there are other games that could fit that description but not as many as you might think.
Mark Jackson:
I’m not a huge fan of Coloretto (I’d rather be playing the oddly similar Alan Moon creation, King’s Breakfast), but that doesn’t mean it’s a bad game. I do think (as others have said) that it can degenerate into “mess up each other’s plays and hope for a good card draw” kind of game, but that’s more dependent on the players than a fault of the game itself. (I’ve also tried the first expansion and didn’t think it added much to the game.)
Larry Levy:
I’m with Morgan with regards to Coloretto. With four or five, the game can be played quite quickly and even mindlessly. Yeah, there’s a little thought that can be given to sweetening certain piles, but it really isn’t rocket science. With three, however, the level of control increases and it now becomes more interesting. Even with more players, the game is harmless and pleasant enough to play. But it’s really a title I can take or leave unless I play it with three.
Shannon Appelcline:
I’d generally agree with that assessment.
Morgan Dontanville:
Shannon, I find your quote fascinating: “Is there actual solid strategy there, or is there a large random factor that’s overpowering the intelligent gameplay?”
I really thought about this, as it hit a nerve for me. When I play his games, I sometimes feel that his mechanics are more important than the players. As I said before, I believe that he is an innovator, but at what cost. Many times in his games I feel that I have to spend time figuring out the right sequence of levers to pull and then the punch-card comes out and I randomly discover that I was correct or that I was incorrect and now I’m screwed.
I am quite a fan of perfect information games. When they are good they are bulls-eyes to bliss. I think that most of these games require a great deal of work, but I don’t mind it as it seems that there is a payoff for what I put into it. Schacht’s games to me require this kind of work and then I get to find out if it paid off or not.
Some people find games like Neuland or Clippers cold, dry and clinical, but to me they put you at the peak of interaction with other players. The reason that I find Schacht’s games cold is that they are just as systematic, but are then removed from direct interaction. It feels like my plans become like a rag doll tossed around a tornado. Suddenly, I am no longer just manipulating the system to effect my position and other players, but rather the system is manipulating me. This is why I find his games cold, removed, and lifeless. Welcome to the machine.
Mark Jackson:
Happily, there is a new game (just released at Nuremberg) from Tom Lehmann called Um Krone und Kragen, which bears some similarities to this design (acquire cards that give you extra abilities, the goal is gaining power with the king) but manages to play in a reasonable amount of time (30 minutes) and, more importantly, allows for very clever combinations of special powers to accomplish your objectives. (It doesn’t hurt that there is no such thing as a wasted roll, either.) I highly recommend it!
Larry Levy:
Yes, YES, YESSSSSSSSSSSS!!! To me, Um Krone und Kragen actually resembles a dice version of San Juan, as you acquire cards that give you powers and allow different combinations. I’m really hoping one of the U.S. online stores will stock this. It would probably be my #1 choice at the Gathering prize table (hopefully it will be there, since the designer will), but if not, I may just wind up making my first non- domestic game order!
Frank Branham:
I’m actually not that fond of Michael Schacht’s games. Either they contain blind bidding (grrr!) or have 30 million ways to score points (another pet peeve.)
No one has mentioned the sublime Interurban, which is far and away my favorite design of his. It has been languishing on Winsome’s list for a year or two now. It is a simple-looking tile-laying game with some very strange and slightly unintuitive rules for how the tiles can be placed. The end result is a very short (30 minute) game which evokes Kardinal, Metro, Fresh Fish, and offers some really impressive puzzle-like decisions.
I dig it lots.
Larry Levy:
I mentioned it, Frank. It is indeed a clever game, sadly unnoticed by the gaming parakeets of the world. I don’t dig it lots, but I dig it.
Alfred Wallace:
And Interurban’s available for free download, too: http://spiele-aus-timbuktu.de/downloadinterurban.html
I’m not a huge fan of all of Schacht’s games--I despise Knights, for instance--but he’s made a fair number of winners for me. Web of Power/China chief among them. Coloretto is good for a quick game (never played with three, just as a filler for more).
Hansa and Kontor just strike me as a bit flawed, for whatever reason. I prefer Hansa of the two, but it seems like the game is too brittle if one player doesn’t quite grasp the need to not set up the players coming after him. Kontor struck me as “interesting,” but not exactly “fun.”
Rat Hot just didn’t work for me.
What I love, though, is his website, full of downloads.
David Fair:
Indeed! In fact, I would go so far as to say that Michael Schacht has one of the best game designers sites out there, rivaled only by sites like Bruno Faidutti’s. He seems to really enjoy going back to his existing designs and adding a small twist or expansion to them. The number of downloadable Kontor expansions alone rivals the number of published Carcassonne expansions. His selection of print-and-play stuff is just great.
I would love it if other designers did as much on their sites as Michael Schacht does on his.
Jason Little:
I had actually never even heard of Interurban before seeing these two posts… That’s enough chatter to warrant investigation on my part. I’m interested to learn more about it.
Morgan Dontanville:
Mark, I may well never know if Kontor has a hidden genius side as it was traded away. The thing is, I never found it flawed, but in the grand scheme of things there are just hundreds of other games I’d rather play.
Michael, yes I agree whole heartedly in recognizing the value in light portable fillers. I see how Coloretto finds its way into people’s hearts—through the ease of finding its way onto people’s tables.
This is actually why I’ve played the game multiple times. But, for portable easy fillers, I’d always defer to games like King’s Breakfast, No Thanks! Money! or Der Plumpsack.
Shannon Appelcline:
Fillers are indeed an interesting category. As it happens, I played three of the games that Morgan mentioned just Saturday: Coloretto, King’s Breakfast, and No Thanks!
No Thanks! is so light as to be almost non-existent (which isn’t a knock), but Coloretto and King’s Breakfast are very comparable games. They’re both card-drafting, set-collection games where you have the opportunity to partially control what other people take and where you have limits as to what you want to take: in Coloretto you don’t want to take certain colors and in King’s Breakfast you don’t want to take excesses of colors.
Right now King’s Breakfast is the rising star of those three for me, but that’s mainly because I played Coloretto and No Thanks! out after I acquired them. I honestly can’t fault a filler for getting played out after a half-dozen or a dozen games. If you can find a 15-minute filler that doesn’t suffer from that problem, *that* game will be a masterpiece, but as far as I can tell there can’t be sufficient depth in a game of that length for it to last through constant plays.
Larry Levy:
Who needs depth? It’s a filler! :-) All I know is that No Thanks (and For Sale and Money, two other excellent super-fast fillers) have sufficient variety and skill that they keep coming out long after they reach a dozen games played. They’re fun to play, they’re well suited for gamers of all stripes, and they only take 15 minutes. I don’t need them to be E&T.
Mark Jackson:
I find that Coloretto is like eating greasy “tater babies” (french-fried potato wedges that were available at the convenience store down on the bypass when I lived in Arkansas)… they are very tasty for a little bit but you end up with a heavy feeling by the end of your binge. Coloretto has some nice qualities - but playing out the entire game gets a bit “heavy” in the end.
Shannon Appelcline:
So don’t play out the “full game” of Coloretto. I think it’s a better game if you play just one round, then if you play the three or four rounds specified by the rules. It definitely sustains the shorter gameplay.
Larry Levy:
Agreed. The only filler I’ve ever seen where the “play this N number of times” made sense is Joe Huber’s Ice Cream. Those who do well in one hand tend to do poorly in the next, since they don’t have many tubs of ice cream left, so this is a nice balancing mechanism. In that case, it really does make sense to play the four hands the rules indicate, particularly since it still only takes about 30 minutes.
Shannon Appelcline:
I found it interesting how different, nearly identical, games can have very different ideas as to what constitutes a game. Why does Coloretto specify three rounds, while King’s Breakfast says one? Does Michael Schacht consider Coloretto more serious of a game, and thus wants the extra rounds to average out the luck? Does his publisher think it’s more serious than King’s Breakfast? Or do developers just not pay attention to this sort of thing?
Frank Branham:
That is a much weirder question. In general, the publisher has the final call, and most German companies develop their game quite thoroughly. In this case, the same companies published both King’s Breakfast and Coloretto. Joe Nikisch and Jay Tummelson are designers themselves and will change a design if they see a reason.
I see the same issue with Spy (Reiner Knizia / Uberplay). I thought it was a nice, light and rather fun game...until I took a closer look at the rules and noticed that you were supposed to play it like 6 times in a row. At that point, I found the game quite horrible.
So it probably how the design was submitted. King’s Breakfast does have a lighter theme, and the shorter duration fits that mold. Michael Schacht’s designs tend to be more targeted towards gamers, to the more serious abstract graphics and multiple rounds to “reduce the effect of luck”.
Morgan Dontanville:
For what it is worth I recently started a geeklist on this very subject http://www.boardgamegeek.com/geeklist.php3?action=view&listid=13587
Larry Levy:
Larry: I’ve mentioned this before, but I see very little skill in King’s Breakfast and I usually adore Alan and Aaron games. It’s a pleasant enough game, but the amount of control seems to be tiny. Even Coloretto with four or five players seems to have more. No Thanks!, on the other hand, is a brilliant design. Lots of luck, of course, but also lots of decisions to be made. I think good judgment is a significant element in winning. Plus, you can explain it in about 60 seconds. In many ways, it’s the perfect filler.
Mark Jackson:
Schacht has two brilliant “speed/real time” games, both published by Goldsieber. The first, Tohuwabohu, is a pattern recognition game that uses 36 oddly shaped pieces (and, for extra fun, the 36 frames they came in). While it’s not a perfect game (it’s very difficult to catch up if you get behind), it’s a lot of fun to play.
In a slightly different vein, Affenraffen combines real-time speed with memory. Interestingly, what makes this game work is the special tiles (which you can use to advance your own score or hurt the leader) and the scoring system, which allows players to sufficiently slow down the leader from the first round to keep them from running away with the game.
Larry Levy:
Contra - Very abstract two-player placement game. The gameplay was interesting, but ties seemed almost a guarantee. Ultimately, it wasn’t worth the thought involved.
Morgan Dontanville:
In all honesty, I’m not sure that the audience was considered for Coloretto, just as I don’t think that Schacht ever considers his audience. To me, Schacht feels like some mad tinker that creates his wonderful toys in seclusion. He wants all his toys to have life breathed into them. He loves each of them individually, with no consideration of the people playing them.
In some ways his games remind me of Yoko Ono’s Vending Machines. She conceptualized a number of these and as far as I know made only a few. They were things like the Sky Machine, where you put in a coin and it gave you a piece of cardboard with a sky painted on it. The Teardrop machine, you put a coin in and it dispensed a teardrop. One machine destroyed itself.
It seems that he wants to create perfectly crafted systems; demonstrating how ingenious they are—and they are ingenious. Each design is precious. So much so that he sells his homemade kits and posts everything he creates on his website. But like the film maker Godard, his work is so self inclusive and reflexive that I’m surprised when one of his creations is capable of being loved.
I have a ton of respect for Michael Schacht. He is highly motivated. He is an innovator. I would even go so far as to say he is an artist. But, I just rarely enjoy his work, and frankly, I’m not sure he cares.
Musings On… is a roundhouse forum discussion on games and topics related to gaming. if you are interested in participating in future discussions, please email David Fair at dafair followed by the at sign and gmail.com.
Posted by David Fair on Apr 4, 2006 at 07:30 PM in Special Features, Musings on... / 1479
Comments:
You must register with BGN in order to comment. Registration is free!|
Both Hansa and Richelieu can be played online/play-by-web at: Dave: I’ll have Magna Grecia with me at Game Days next month; I’d be happy to teach you the game. joe Posted by Joe Casadonte on Apr 4, 2006 at 08:13 PM | #
|
|
Opps. You might want to re-check that first paragraph. (Feel free to delete this comment after you fix it) Posted by Thomas Pancoast on Apr 4, 2006 at 08:49 PM | #
|
|
Joe - Sounds good to me! I plan to be at Game Days, but i will likely only be there Friday Afternoon-Sunday Evening, and not at all on Thursday, alas. I am out of leave! Tom - Thanks, I fixed it. Hope you enjoyed the discussion. Dave Posted by David Fair on Apr 4, 2006 at 08:56 PM | #
|
|
With one exception, Michael Schacht’s designs have never excited me. I wouldn’t say that I hate his games or that they’re bad designs, but they almost always leave me cold. Dschunke and Industria I thought were decent but nothing that I would go out of my way to play again, Gods was squarely in “meh” territory, and Web of Power, Magna Grecia and Coloretto I actually felt an active dislike for. I’ve tried to figure out exactly what is at the root of this disaffinity...I think Chris Farrell once said that there seems like there’s more control in his games than there really is, and I’ve often thought that that was right on the money (for the ones that I’ve tried, anyway). I think I’ve come up with something better, though, and this is it: all of Michael Schacht’s games have the quality of seeming like they would be a huge amount of fun if only your opponents were playing very carelessly. Let me explain: when I play a Knizia game (a fair comparison, I think, as both seem to have a certain abstract quality to their designs), I often feel like I am doing something useful or satisfying with my moves. Either something gets accomplished or I am working towards a goal, and even if my plans ultimately blow up in my face, I at least feel a certain sense of hope and expectation while I’m working them out. With Michael Schacht games, however, you can always see fantastic opportunities on the board...if only the other players would ignore you, which of course they won’t. Players are constantly tripping each other up in Schacht’s games--it’s easy, it’s necessary--and so one is always left stumbling along in a haphazard way just hoping for the best. It’s like trying to make a peanut-butter-and-jelly sandwich while someone keeps throwing the bread and knocking the knife out of your hands and tipping over the jelly; if you work really hard you might end up with a gooey mess that looks vaguely like a sandwich, but it’s nothing you would serve to a guest. In this respect, Coloretto is the ultimate distillation of the Schacht esthetic. Morgan once offered a rather vivid analogy of the game play of Coloretto, and I can’t quite repeat it here, but if you see him, ask him about it. In games that I enjoy, messing with your opponents’ plans is always a part of what’s going on, but it’s not necessarily the main focus of what you’re doing; with Schacht, the balance feels to be about fifty-fifty, maybe worse. A game by a different designer which bugs me for the same reason is El Caballero. I would make a distinction, however, between Schacht-type games and games where the only point is to hurt your opponents; I don’t mind the latter. There is one game of his that I like, however, which is Hansa. It too has that constant-frustration-by-opponents problem, but for some reason I enjoy the game despite this quality. Posted by Joe Gola on Apr 5, 2006 at 07:31 AM | #
|
|
After a walk and some fresh air, I feel inspired to refine the point. A Knizia game is a tangled wilderness, and the players hack their way through in search of breathtaking mountaintops, cool waters, and ancient lost monuments. A Schacht game is a wide-open vista, resplendent with cooling glades, mysterious thickets and intriguing paths. Then the players are handed a bunch of fences. Posted by Joe Gola on Apr 5, 2006 at 07:51 AM | #
|
|
I confess that I am surprised by the lackluster opinions of Michael Schacht’s designs. It’s hard to think of a designer that can pack so much into a short game. One issue for me with a short game, be it a filler or not, is that often they are, well, unfulfilling. You play the game in half an hour, but you are left unsatisifed, not feeling like you accomplished anything, regardless of whether or not you won. Generally, this is not the case with Schacht at all. I will admit that his games can feel a little dry, but nowhere near as dry as most Colovini games. I would contend that Schacht games have just as much theme to them as other beloved game designers. You have a few games that really could have any theme, but is Schacht alone in this? Morgan wrote, “It seems that he wants to create perfectly crafted systems; demonstrating how ingenious they are—and they are ingenious. Each design is precious. So much so that he sells his homemade kits and posts everything he creates on his website.” Is Mr Schacht that pompous? I take his little variants and interest in his games as a sign of a dedicated designer who is always tweaking with his games, and enjoying what he does. Not only that, he is very public and open to people trying out different tweaks of the games. Heck, you can probably catch him at Mabiweb playing some Richelieu right now if you like. Dare I say it, I think he is a gamer! Posted by Ogdred Weary on Apr 5, 2006 at 05:46 PM | #
|
Next entry: The Dice Tower: Episode 45 - Top Ten Games from 1998
Previous entry: Hacienda Contest
