Well now, it has been a while rather, hasn't it? Well, yes; yes it has. La de da. So I had a thought not so very long ago about a blog post idea, and it's spiraled into being something a mite too large. So, all in all, I figured, hey, why not make it a series. In my four previous posts, I can see that I have not yet compiled an official series. So, here will be the instating of my first (and potentially--but I doubt it--last) series. So, now, to title this post. That is correct, I choose to title this, neither before nor after typing the post, but rather toward the end of Paragraph 1.
Unrelated quote:
"Sleeping is only a gateway drug to being awake again."
--TMBG (from "Wearing a Raincoat")
Related quote:
"I pretty much forgot what I was going to rant about just now because of that TMBG song."
--me (just now)
Post-pre-filler caption and episode title:
Here we go.
Rant 1: Board Games
Recently, a newfangled, perchance rejuvenated sweep of overbearing necessitation has overcome a vast majority of the collective I tend to spend a good deal of my spare time with, that being to partake in the nettlesome toil (in my mind's eye) that has been dubbed Settlers of Catan.
Now, a raising of hands for those offended?
Now, a raising of hands for those surprised at my lack of deference for said board game?
Now, a raising of hands for those confused by my unexpectedly collegiate vocabulary?
Doubt any of you are surprised about my dislike of this game. Some of you may be surprised on the why of it though, which I discussed in minor detail with Timothy yesternight amid our frustrations regarding weather-related quality-programming cancellations. So, here comes the long and short of it. Long first. Short (summary) after. Skip if you will, though it oughtn't be too very painful of a read.
What It Is
All in all, I've realized it's not so much the games that bother me. I can stand games, board games, even. Some days, I actually like to play them. In fact, I had quite a good time the other weekend with Timothy and Jeremy McKean playing Vegas Showdown. 'Twas a new game, even, one I'd never played. Yes, I enjoyed it. Yes, it was fun. But it's not something I'd suggest as a large group activity...and not because of the player limit either.
I find board games are best when there are four or fewer participants. And I suppose, in this, I should define "best." That would mean, in this case, at least for me: the most interactive, most fun, best learning environment, most interesting, right amount of things to pay attention to whilst yet being able to hold a coherent conversation about something not involving the game, best environment for learning how competitors develop strategy, etc.
So, when a group of five or six people asks me to join a game that I barely even know how to play (this referring specifically to Settlers), to which they've devoted--ahem*wasted*cough--a certain number of years of each of their lives, yes, I am a bit wary of such a proposal. I generally decline, and whenever I have accepted the offer, I have received little help in developing any sort of strategy, or really any help whatever, besides Timothy explaining or re-explaining the basics of the rules (which I do appreciate, by the way). This lack of assistance is partly because they are so devoted to their own portion of the gameplay, but I believe it is partially also because my diminutive knowledge of the game is at a level low enough that none of them even remember being there.
I mean, really, I didn't even know there were "development cards" involved in the game until the fifth or sixth time I played, because (a) I never saw a one of them in my possession (or at all) during gameplay, and (b) no one ever thought to mention them or their apparent importance or how to get them--actually, I've yet to receive an explanation on that one. Bah, well.
What Else It Is
In my very brief discussion of these things with Timothy, I mentioned feeling about board games similar to the way he feels about watching movies: this being that they are not community-building activities, but rather just something to do. Now, I realize some of you would readily disagree with this sentiment, but that disagreement would be inherently ignorant. Playing board games can enhance a community, yes, but this will generally only happen if two factors are in play. Factor 1: the players have to be either at the same level of knowledge of the game or all be playing at whatever level the most inexperienced player happens to be on at the time. Factor 2: everyone playing should have the same interest within the game, the same reason for playing (e.g., we're playing this because it's fun for us; or, we're playing this because it's outright ridiculous; or, we're playing this to see if it really takes over 60 hours to finish...)
If the play is not at the same level, those more experienced will generally have an easier time of it, leaving the inexperienced participants nothing but frustrated. If those playing are playing for different reasons, well, pretty much of the time everyone would get frustrated. So, really, it only builds community in rather specific circumstances, if that is your goal of it. Which it probably isn't.
On the other side of things, movies never really frustrate me. So, one point for motion pictures.
Subterranean Societies
Another thing that bothers me especially about this is, when I refuse the offer to play Settlers or some ridiculous game I've never heard of, I often catch a very clear sense of scorn emanating from those already committed to playing. I'm not sure why this is, but it seems to be some underlying taboo to refuse a game when most of the people present want to play it. This is a taboo I refuse to be controlled by, and yet it still bothers me. Just a bit. Not for what it is in itself, but more because these selfsame people would never, in any other circumstance, look at me with such snobbish condescension in their eyes, nor be so consistently annoyed with my opinion on something.
It shouldn't bother you that I don't feel like being crushed in a game that I'm not much a fan of to begin with. I'm pretty sure I've never actually won a board game against any of you (unless you count backgammon, which I don't--it's more a box game). And I've definitely never even come close to winning Settlers. Against anyone. So, I really don't understand the supercilious reactions I've gotten. It has an almost cultish feel...as though I were a member trying to disengage and sever ties with an underground sect, rather than someone who doesn't feel like wasting time on something that I feel would be a waste of my time. Yes. Repetition. Yes. For effect. I don't understand it at all. I do understand this: I don't like it. It's like bottle-arrogance, the way an alcoholic views a sober citizen as being uneducated in the ways of the world. I'm not sure, but I may have just coined a term. Anyhow, I suppose it's on to the next thing now, a less important thing.
Why Settlers Is Monopoly
1. It's a board game.
2. Six-sided dice are rolled, so that chance will decide some of what happens that turn.
3. Players attempt to own more/better property than the others, with upgrades, even (a la houses-to-hotels).
4. There is a negative side to the Chance cards, being that if a seven is rolled, something not so great generally happens to one or more of the players...almost like a GO TO JAIL card.
5. The winner is the one who gets the most the fastest.
6. I have less respect for this game than I have for Monopoly, which inherently makes it Monopoly, from what I've learned from my conversations with serious gamers.
Final Touch of Realism
Personally, physical activity ranks about four hundred times higher than board games on my "Things I Find Interesting" list. Video games are in between there somewhere, far higher than board games. Learning to knit and crochet is higher than board games. What else is higher? Well, naps, food, doodling, reading, smelling some unknown substance to determine what it is, being slide tackled, trying to have a serious conversation with Yulia Mishchenko (the Amazing/Evil)...not sure on her last name now, since she's married and all. An innumerable amount of things would just about cover things I'd prefer to board games, and an innumerable number of board games would fall into a list above Settlers.
Also, yes, I have had a serious conversation with Yulia, believe it or not. It was only one, but it did happen.
Promised Summary
Board games are better in groups of no more than four. You should help people understand games if you want them to play games. Stop being jerks. Settlers of Catan=Monopoly. And there are so many thousands of things I'd rather do than play board games.
That's my take. Yours? (I have personally reserved the Comments section for your words on the matter).
4 comments:
I better understand the issues you have with Settlers. Perhaps you could play 2 one 1 with people and figure out more strategies and learn to not hate the game so much?
Well, I will leave a 'long' answer and a then a summary too:
I am too competitive, so I shy away from Risk. I like games where there are no politics. By 'politics' I mean a dynamic of purposely, but more often unintentionally, ganging up on other players for fun and/or profit, i.e. gain in personal esteem because of beating someone.
I like Settlers on occasion, but I've always badgered Timothy for rules in any game he tries to teach me and he is very forthcoming if you ask. You do need to ask though (see 'culture' discussion on his May 2 blog).
I've also had beginner's luck once or twice (in some other games as well), so that is fun, but weird and effects me to the point of liking the game a bit more (see initial comment about my immature competitiveness).
I hate Monopoly because of the inherent game politics, thus following your description, I would have to suggest you more hate the lack of community and plethora of politics at the 'Settlers' games you have participated in, than the game itself. If you would have had someone work with you the first game or two and not only explain strategy, but parameters, you would have had, at the least, a more positive experience.
I would ditto your emotions regarding board games, however, toward my experience with video games, particularly Halo 2. Everyone I play with already knows the game terrain, where weapons and hiding places are and how to get somewhere by the shortest route. I come in consistently last . . . but since I like pretending to kill things/people with guns, I keep going back for more . . . I always liked bang-bang shoot-shoot (army men, cops and robbers, cowboys and Indians) growing up and with my brother-in-law Maynard when he was growing up . . . but the rest of the video game experience for me is often as frustrating as you describe "Settlers" is for you.
I also refer you to one of Timothy's earlier blogs where he describes his personal reasons for his affinity toward games: http://cloudthreads.blogspot.com/2008_01_01_archive.html
Jan 25.
Besides, in Settlers, I like building things on the side with the little wooden pieces.
You need to try the home spun game of "Dictionary" in a larger group. Hilarious and who cares who wins. If Monopoly is equal to "Settlers", your observation that you like it better than 'Settlers' suggest your dissatisfaction lies more in the lack of community support than in either game itself. What say?
Summary:
Agreed, but the issue may be more along your argument toward lack of community than your argument against the game itself.
i pretty much knew all of that. but i like to hear you write it. and i support your views. though, i do love settlers. sorry. i shall try not to look on you with scorn. that is all for today. let's watch some battlestar galatica now.
that last comment is just from amanda, but i couldn't sign just my name because my e-mail is being used for our blog.
Post a Comment