Ryan B.: Making Room for a Third

Occasionally, it becomes time for me to write another boardgame article.  I have to admit, it is much more fun to semi retire to the Boardgame News comments section, which allows me to be much more flip and glib with my commentary and taste preferences.  But yes, there is a time when I have to step up to the big chair and write something of consequence.

I’ll first take a moment to congratulate Eric Martin for his stewardship of Boardgame News.  For many of our readers, Eric has continued to make this website extremely relevant to the boardgame community and I just think he has done an excellent job, period.  And that fact really needs to be mentioned, as Eric has evolved the website in meaningful ways and has attempted to solicit several differing writing viewpoints… which really helps to promote diversity and makes the website widely accessible to a larger audience. 

The weekly columnist line-up is very strong and diverse.  Valerie Putnam still anchors as one of the original columnists, Dale Yu has been a fixture and more than capably holds down the Wednesday Columnist slot and so often delivers insightful, funny prose.  Now Melissa Rogerson delivers yet another strong female viewpoint on games and it is also neat to see the shoe on the other other foot as I get the opportunity now to lend my own meager commentary to Matt Carlson’s writings… instead of the other way around!  Boardgame News is well positioned for 2008 and we are all able to benefit from it.

So what was the great boardgame debate in 2007?

Undoubtedly, it was less about boardgames themselves and seemingly more about personalities.  With great interest, a new “genre” of boardgame was hammered out, even though the method of creation had been in place for years.  This new genre? 

“Ameritrash.”

It’s champion?  The Satchel Paige and sometimes self-imposed pariah of boardgame writing & journalism: Michael Barnes.

But guess what folks… this article isn’t going to be about personalities.  Let’s talk about the competing ideations of design instead.

We should all take lessons about what the “Ameritrash” movement of gaming has done positively in, about and for the hobby.  But I have earlier commented to this point specifically:  The “Euro” method of design has done more for forward movement of game design than anything that has been devised in the last three decades, at least from what I can see.  Think of it as a technological leap.  All of those who decry that the “Euro” method of design has effectively made generic the whole of boardgame design… are mistaken.  The “Euro” method has revolutionized boardgame design in new, exciting, imaginative and far flung ways.  This includes the design of “mainstream” boardgames, including a modern rethinking of old classics, Monopoly and Risk.  All of the boardgame armchair pundits that have taken the suddenly fashionable potshots at the “Euro” method of design should rethink their positions.  “Eurogames” are getting a revisionist history something akin to Stalin, circa 1960. 

And that’s not fair.

Having said that, I also have mentioned something else about the “Euro” method of design, that also can be summed up in one word:  “Sameness.” More and more Eurogame designs seem to be compilations of other similar designs.  A little bit here, a little bit there, slap on a new theme and voila!  A new boardgame, ready to print, to join the other 200 odd-something Euro designs that have been put out there in just the last two to three years.  Is it any wonder that you see Days of Wonder, for example, with nary a word of any new proclamation of 2008 games announced?

Believe it or not, I do get in playings of these so-called “Eurogames”.  I am hardly an expert in the genre.  But you don’t need to be a expert to recognize something that bears shades of what you have played before.  Do I think the creativeness of this school of design to be exhausted?  No.  But I will cheer the “Ameritrash” movement for demanding something more, and something broader in their boardgaming experience.  The hobby needs to be pushed to constantly gain the very best in boardgame design.  Period.

A common Euro design element?  Victory Point tracks were kinda cool in 2003.  In some cases, it’s just lazy design in 2008.

Actually, the point made above brings me to a final purpose, as well.  Remember when at the beginning of almost every boardgame rule book, you would see a sentence that stated: The object of the game is....?  I love it when boardgames have a tangible, objective purpose!  Find Mr. X in London, discover who the murderer is in “Clue!”.... cure all of the diseases in “Pandemic!” I really believe this flavor is needed for the story arc in boardgames. 

Bring me back more games with tangible goals.

And while we are at it, let’s make way for a third genre… the mainstream “Gateway” game.  Take the best from the “Euro” method of design, the best from the “American” method of design and tie it down to mainstream game themes that I can introduce to the neighbor across the street… where they won’t look at me askance and we have them instead say:  sounds like fun!

Because in the end, boardgames really sell themselves you know. 

I may not know everything there is to know about boardgame design… I don’t need to.  But I do know a thing or two about selling. 

Till next time.

Peace.

Ryan B.

© 2008 Ryan B.

---

Comments:

You must register with BGN in order to comment. Registration is free, but if you appreciate the news, previews, reviews and other material posted on Boardgame News, please consider becoming a member to keep the info flowing to your screen!

I think the streamlined quality of the so-called Euro-designs is both a strength and a weakness.  While providing accessibility (shorter and easier-to-grasp rules) and more freedom to focus on the strategy, the mechanics also become somewhat modular and are easily adopted (and adapted) by other designers.  It is an ongoing question in any design profession (architecture as well): how much of the design is reassembling an already existing “kit of parts”? Posted by Jeff Allers on Mar 4, 2008 at 03:07 AM | #

I guess I’m obligated to comment. Not much to say other than I have to agree a good theme goes a long way towards bringing new people into the hobby and helping beginning players get a feel for how to play a game. I played a game of Kingsburg last night and enjoyed the theme of building a little fiefdom and defending it from invaders.  While the game boils down to lots of dice rolling, placement of said dice, and decisions on how to spend resources - the theme carries the game enough to help new players keep track of overall goals. Posted by Matt J. Carlson on Mar 4, 2008 at 10:51 AM | #

< Back Home