Valerie Putman:  My left vs. my right vs. your left vs. your right

I got together with a friend the other night to play some games.  We had hoped that others would join us, but it ended up being just the two of us at the pub that night.  Luckily he brought a game that could play two, an attractive little abstract kids game from Reiner Knizia called Bunte Runde.  The game comes with two sets of bits.  There are 36 wooden blocks in 6 shapes and 6 colors or, for younger players, colored disks with animals on them (fewer kinds and fewer colors).  We felt up to the challenge of the adult rules, so we pushed all the wooden blocks into a pile and then started to randomly arrange them in a big circle as directed.  A brown meeple is then placed on one of the blocks to start and on your turn you move the meeple forward 1, 2, or 3 spaces and take the block.  When the 6th of a shape or the 6th of a color is taken, players score one VP chip for each block they have of that type.  So, for example, when the 6th purple block is taken, he scores 4 pts because he has 4 of the purple blocks and I score the other 2.  There are enough VP chips for 6 scorings (and accommodations if a 6th and 7th characteristic score at the same time), and the game ends when the last chips are taken.  The game was quick and fun and we played twice, trying different strategies each time.  As we were about to pack it up, my friend commented that it was too bad we didn’t have a third player, the game has an added scoring twist when you play more than two.

Stop.  What twist?  Can I really claim that I’ve tried the game if it plays so differently with more than two?  Apparently with more players, your final score is your VP chips plus the VP chips of the player to your left!  A whole different level of the game would emerge because you now benefit from setting the next player up to take a good piece.  I grin, my eyes twinkle, and I’m clearly doing a mental snoopy dance as I ask, “Couldn’t we each play two people and give it a try?  My left hand vs. my right hand vs. your left hand vs. your right hand!  Come on….pleeeeeeeeeease?â€?  Really, who could resist?  We set the game up and quickly realize that we have to hammer out some logistics.  First, we must decide turn order.  Should we alternate so that you take a turn, then I take a turn, and so on?  Or should we just follow the clockwise logic of my right, followed by my left, then your right, then your left?  We decide on the latter because it’s less confusing and we each have a hand that follows our hand and one that follows the other.  Next question, are we playing to maximize both hands or should we try to play the hands independently?  We both agree to do our best to play our hands independently and it really wasn’t too hard.  In the end his right hand won and we were both delighted to see the full game.

The truth is, this wasn’t a new dilemma for me.  This summer Dale Yu and I had an opportunity to play games one afternoon and we really wanted to play a 4-player Age of Steam map but we were short two other players.  Yes, Dale’s kids are great gamers, but at 3 and 5 they weren’t quite ready for that challenge yet.  We were both happy to each play 2 different colors, but we were both skeptical about the idea of trying to play them independently.  Can I really convince myself that my green player didn’t drop out of the turn order auction because my yellow player really needed to go first this round?  If both of Dale’s players have dropped out of the auction already, am I really going to get into a bidding war with myself?  Seriously…try to picture it!  On the other hand, neither of us really wanted to play team Age of Steam.  It would change the game too much.  So here are the possibilities we considered:

1. Play the two colors as independently as possible and the best score wins.
2. Your final score is the sum of the scores of your two players.
3. Your final score is the score of your worst player.
4. Your final score is calculated by a mathematical theorem only Reiner Knizia could come up with.  (Sadly we had to abandon this option since Reiner wasn’t available for consultation.)

In the end we went with option number one.  But when one of my players won but the other player went bankrupt, it was clear to me that this wasn’t the best choice.  Dale did a far better job managing both players and ended up with a strong 2nd and 3rd place, not far behind my 1st place player.  I definitely played the two players independently.  I didn’t win by using my losing player to ship goods across my winning player’s routes or by avoiding cubes that the other player needed.  But I failed at the task at hand.  I was not able to really plan out and think ahead for two players and so I made some careless mistakes with one and then I was free to focus my attention on the other.  Dale, on the other hand, did an impressive job of calculating his costs and returns and planning two different strategies for two different players.  He was clearly the winner of our two-person, four-player challenge.

Anyway, it was fun, but not something I plan to do often.  I am curious, though, how would you score it?

I’d rather be gaming,
Valerie Putman

© 2006 Valerie Putman

---

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’ve found some games to be even more enjoyable when 1.) each player plays two positions at the table; or 2.) the players collaborate to play an additional position at the table.  For example, if you only have two people and one of the two is dying to play Settlers, then add a third player, and when it comes to Mr. X’s turn, both players decide what he would probably do.  Recently, my girlfriend and I played a Settlers with a phantom third player, and Mr. X won with an overwhelming amount of development cards.  Also, she didn’t like Through The Desert with two, but when we added a phantom third player, she liked the game a lot more, probably because it added a social “talky” element.  I started a geeklist on this topic, and found another: http://www.boardgamegeek.com/geeklist/9040 http://www.boardgamegeek.com/geeklist/2531 Posted by Joel Abbott on Oct 8, 2006 at 08:27 AM | #

Valerie, I always knew that you and Yu (ha!) were Age of Steam freaks, but this takes it perhaps to the level of the disturbing.  I cannot imagine playing TWO independent players at AoS and retain what is left of my sanity.  Ya know, there really are a lot of good games out there that are DESIGNED to be played with two players! As it turns out, I strongly dislike games where the two-player variant begins, “Each player takes two colors...”.  I just feel it completely changes the gaming experience, so I avoid them.  Obviously, not everyone feels that way, but if I have only have one opponent and we want something meaty, I’ll play one of the many games that can be played with two without gimmicks, like Goa or Puerto Rico. Posted by Larry Levy on Oct 8, 2006 at 09:01 AM | #

I’ve never played AoS with two players mimicking four, but I often self-test my own maps (and other game designs) before “live” playtesting with up to six players. It’s pretty hard on the brain with AoS, since there’s a lot to keep track of. I find it difficult not to “be nice” to a color that has some sort of plan when I have the opportunity to screw them with a “unfortunately-placed” urbanization, or to cut them off from a desperately-needed spot with what our group calls “the octopus” (building as many town/city spokes as possible to prevent others from reaching said town/city). Doing that as well as trying to take notes on things that need to be changed is mentally exhausting; it makes me appreciate any minor AoS downtime in a real group. I did play a 2 player Railroad tycoon once where we each played 2 players. We agreed on your option #3 after much debate, and decided that the two players could act as a team (having only one bid up for the auction, shipping over each other’s routes, etc.). We didn’t think we could totally honestly keep the players independant, ‘cause we would know their plans and they would affect our decisions. Posted by Ted Alspach on Oct 8, 2006 at 10:18 AM | #

I’ve been involved in some two players acting like three or four.  Some games lend themselves well to this.  AoS is a stretch, when a couple of us have really wanted to try a new map, we’ve just played one position each and played a much more “spacious” game. Jungle Speed is one that does work well.  I saw the guys at the Asmodee booth a couple Gencons ago, playing with both hands. It’s challenging. For your question, I think usually the best scheme to to score the combined points of your left and right hand.  But it’s sometimes fun to see how well your right hand can do with the left hand as a dedicated kingmaker! Posted by Scott Russell on Oct 9, 2006 at 11:32 AM | #

< Back Home