Few games in recent years have captivated me as much as Yedo by first-time designers Wolf Plancke and Thomas Vande Ginste.  This talented design team has managed to combine the best of European game mechanisms with the rich theme and atmosphere of American style games, creating a game that is thoroughly engaging and dripping with theme.  In spite of its relatively long playing time of three hours or more, it is a game that I am still eager to play again and again.

The game, published by Eggertspiele and Pegasus Spiele, is set in early 17th century Japan.  Players represent clan leaders attempting to appease and impress s the new Shogun.  There are numerous ways to accomplish this task, the main one being the completion of various missions and tasks, most of which require deeds of a questionable and often downright evil nature.  Theft, kidnapping, intrigue and even assassinations are all fair game in the quest for fame, power and prestige.

At first glance, the large board appears to be quite confusing.  After a bit of examination, however, it is actually easy to decipher.  The center of the board depicts seven districts of Yedo (modern day Tokyo) arranged in a Trivial Pursuit pie pattern.  Each district has a unique color and symbol which is replicated on appropriate cards for easy identification.  Players will place their disciples into these districts in order to execute the special powers they convey and to successfully complete missions.  Located along the top and right side of the board are the various items that are available for acquisition during the bidding round during each turn.  Aside from a few special ability icons in the districts that are oddly placed, everything is actually laid-out quite well and the icons are easy to understand.

Players begin the game with two disciples, an action card, four mission cards and a handful of “Mon”, which is the game’s currency.  Additional starting items are gained from a selected “Favor of the Emperor” card.  These items are placed on or beside the player’s Clan House board, which also contains space for annexes and geishas acquired during the game.  It is important to note that there are strict limits to the number of items a player can possess in each category.  This requires the player to carefully manage all of these items and also prevents the hoarding of items, which would make the completion of missions significantly easier.  The board also depicts one of the best sequence-of-play charts I have ever seen in a game.

Each turn, players bid to acquire various assets that will help them in their quest to acquire prestige.  Available items include weapons, new disciples, bonus cards (which grant prestige at game’s end if the conditions are met), action cards, annexes, mission cards and even geishas.  Many of these items are required to complete missions, which are at the heart of the game.  Bidding is conducted in a quick, once-around-the-table method, with the player opening the auction having the last opportunity to trump the highest bidder.  A player may only win one auction, so each player has the opportunity to acquire one item.  All is not lost for a the player who does not get what he desires, as the districts do provide the opportunity to acquire needed items if the player plans wisely.  A player may opt out of the auction in order to receive three Mon, which is sometime necessary as money can be extremely tight.

What is most likely the most controversial aspect of the game—events—follows the bidding phase.  Before the dreaded event card is revealed, however, the weapons available at the market are adjusted.  Depending upon the weapons purchased the previous round, some of the weapons may be removed and others slid over to the less expensive slots.  This allows players to see which weapons are available during the rest of the turn.  Note, however, that this does not happen until after the bidding phase is completed, so players must exercise their bidding choices without perfect knowledge of the weapons market.

After this is accomplished, the top event card is revealed.  Events can be nasty…very nasty.  Earthquakes, typhoons, tsunamis…Japan is not a safe place!  These events can cost the player money, disciples and even a previously acquired annex.  Some of the most irritating events, however, are those that close districts for the duration of the turn.  This forces players to readjust their plans as they may not be able to acquire the items they desire or complete a mission.  Some folks have complained vehemently about this, claiming that these events are too burdensome.  I disagree.  While they most certainly can upset one’s plans and be quite annoying, there usually are ways to mitigate their effects.   By properly placing a disciple, a player can exercise “foresight” and look at the top three event cards.  Thus, he will know what is coming and can plan accordingly.  Another effective method is to be actively working on several missions at one time.  So, if the completion of one is delayed by an event, the player can work on the other one.  So, while the events can be quite powerful and delay one’s plans, I truly believe they add nice flavor and force players to adjust their plans and actions.

During the assignment phase, players will place their disciples into the districts or onto annexes they have previously acquired.  Each of the seven districts offers players the opportunity to acquire certain items or take certain actions.

Harbor District:  The player three choices:  convert to Christianity and receive charity from the church (usually three Mon), buy luxury goods and earn victory points (1 or 3 points), or exercise foresight by examining the top three cards in the bonus deck, arranging them as desired.

Temple District:  The player can receive a blessing (taking one of the blessing tokens), examine and rearrange the top three cards of any of the four mission decks, or examine the top three cards of the event deck.  Blessings are needed to fulfill particular missions, but can also be used to mitigate the effects of certain events.

Market District:  The player may purchase a weapon from the five available or sell a bonus or action card for two Mon.  There are eight different types of weapons and many missions will require the ownership of specific types.

Red Light District:  The player may recruit (purchase) a Geisha or purchase an action card.  Geishas are needed in order to fulfill certain missions.

Tavern District:  The player may construct an annex (four different types are available) or examine and rearrange the top three weapons tiles.  There are four different types of annexes, each of which grants the player a specific ability or benefit.  Further, many missions require the ownership of specific annexes in order to be fulfilled.

Gates District:  The player may recruit (purchase) a new disciple, surrender victory points for money, or examine and rearrange the top three cards in the action deck.  Acquiring more disciples gives the player more actions and more flexibility.

Castle District:  The player may visit the Shogun (earning a prestige point), visit the Bakufu and gain a new mission card, or relax at the Bower and rearrange the turn order.

Each district has limited space for disciples—usually two or three slots—so there is often considerable tension in deciding where and when to place a disciple.  It is quite possible to get shut-out of a desired district if all spaces are filled.  This increases in likelihood as players recruit more disciples.  This is why manipulating the turn order is important; it also highlights the importance of working on multiple objectives at once.

Note that player do not execute the actions of the districts or annexes when placing their disciples; this comes later.  Prior to taking the actions, the watch executes its patrol.  The watch patrol moves one space clockwise or counter-clockwise, depending upon the color of the patrol, which usually changes frequently during the course of the game.  In turn order, players have the opportunity to influence the movement of the patrol by playing specific action cards.  After all cards have been played and the patrol moved, any disciples located in the district where the patrol stops are arrested and returned to the reserve.  Players must once again recruit them in order to gain their services.  Each player begins the game with one blackmail card, which can be used to avoid an arrest.  Certain action cards can also be used to prevent an arrest, so searching for these in the action card deck is usually worthwhile.

Players must exercise constant vigilance in regards to the patrol’s possible movement.  Losing a disciple, as well as the actions they were going to perform, can be quite harmful.  It is easy to forget about the patrol and place a disciple into a district where the patrol will likely move.  Thus, great care should be exercised when placing one’s disciples.

Following the watch patrol movement, any players with disciples in the market and/or tavern may trade certain items.  While this potentially gives players added flexibility, in reality very few trades are actually conducted.  Most players need the items they possess, so trades occur only occasionally.

Each turn ends with the action phase, wherein players take turns removing a disciple from a district and performing an action associated with that district or completing a mission.  I have already described the districts’ actions, so I’ll concentrate on completing missions.

As mentioned earlier, completing missions is at the heart of the game and is vital to achieving victory.  There are four difficulty levels of missions and numerous categories (theft, assassination, warfare, espionage, etc.)  In addition to some very entertaining flavor text, each oversized mission card is divided into two sections:  basic and bonus.  Each section graphically depicts the items necessary to complete that section of the mission, as well as the districts in which a player must position disciples.   A player must possess all of the indicated items, have disciples present in the indicated districts and, in some cases, pay the specified amount of money.  In the vast majority of cases, the items are maintained and not discarded.  If all of these conditions are satisfied, the player removes a disciple from one of the indicated districts and collects the rewards listed.  If he also meets the requirements listed under the bonus section, he earns those rewards as well.  Rewards typically include money, prestige points, items and/or cards.  While the less difficult mission cards are easier to complete, they usually primarily provide money, a much-needed asset.  The more difficult cards provide greater rewards, but as one would expect, have considerably more stringent requirements.  It often takes multiple turns to properly plan for their fulfillment.  Players begin the game with four mission cards of mixed difficulty and are able to acquire new cards during the game by various methods.  Lower difficulty cards are very beneficial in supplying a steady supply of cash, while the more difficult cards are vital for earning prestige points.  Players should keep a steady flow of mission cards of all categories flowing into their hands.  However, there is a strict limit of four incomplete mission cards in a player’s hand, so players must constantly be striving to complete the ones they possess.  You don’t want to offend your clan leader!

Another consideration is the mission’s category, as various bonus cards will earn the player victory points for completing—or avoiding—certain types of missions.  It is important to acquire bonus cards early so one can plan accordingly.

The game is played over the course of eleven rounds, although it can end early if someone completes the extremely difficult “Kill the Shogun” mission.  Players earn final points for their fulfilled bonus cards and two points if they did not use their blackmail card.  The player with the most prestige points earns the favor of the Shogun and wins the game.

Yedo is one of the most exciting and atmospheric games I have played in a long time.  It expertly combines numerous mechanisms that are staples within the European-gaming genre with strong theme and atmosphere that we expect in American-style games.  The decisions players are forced to make are constant, all given a sense of urgency due to the game’s eleven-turn duration and factors that conspire to thwart those plans.  If you are looking for a game wherein you can plan your strategy and execute it without interference, avoid Yedo.  There are factors in the game that are designed to force players to adjust their plans and/or pursue other goals.  Single-mindedly pursuing one particular mission without having back-up plans is a recipe for frustration.

The artwork and graphics are, for the most part, stunning.  This should not be surprising, as the graphic artist is Imelda Vohwinkel, part of the incredibly talented Vohwinkel artist team whose names are well known by European gaming fans.  The art successfully enhances the feudal Japan atmosphere and assists game play.  My only quibble is that the icons on the mission cards—particularly the weapon types—are very small and sometimes difficult to decipher, especially with my aging eyes.

The loudest complaints against the game are aimed against the events, which can be powerful and detrimental to one’s plans, and the watch patrol.  There is no doubt the events add an element of randomness to the game, but I don’t feel they are that devastating.  The ability to exercise foresight and glimpse at the top three events can help with one’s planning, but the safest method is to be actively pursuing several objectives at once.  If one is delayed by an event or the play of an action card, the player can continue to pursue another of his missions.  Further, the game allows two levels of play, and in the easier version certain event cards are removed from play.  Avoiding the watch patrol is more one of vigilance, but sometimes chances must be taken and consequences suffered if they move further than anticipated due to the play of action cards.  Use your blackmail card when needed, and try to obtain more by regularly visiting the action card deck.

It is important to immerse yourself in the atmosphere.  In many games, the flavor text is silly or unimportant.  Not so here.  Read aloud the stories on the mission cards.  You will likely be appalled, yet somehow take glee in the brutal nastiness of the clans as they pursue their quest for prestige and power.  Yes, reading this text does add time to an already long game, but it truly enhances the atmosphere and experience.

Yedo quickly assumed the mantle of my favorite game from the Essen 2012 crop.  As with most games I adore, there is far more players desire to accomplish than a turn allows.  This requires players to prioritize and make tough decisions.  There are also timing pressures, as key locations in the districts may be scooped by opponents if you delay.  You can be bested at the auctions, but can take solace in the knowledge that those items can be obtained in the districts, albeit at considerably higher prices.  Players must also balance the need for acquiring items and victory points with the constant need for cash.  Further, players must always be ready to alter their plans due to the vagaries of the game and the actions of their opponents.  This makes for a highly exciting and tense game, one that I eagerly look forward to playing far into the future.

Thoughts of other Opinionated Gamers:

Ted C:  Time to agree with Greg and to disagree with Greg.  I agree that this is a solid design and is tense to play.  I do not mind the random events and I think the planning and game management works very well.  My issue is that the game feels like this to me (note only one play), take Lords of Waterdeep and add the auction mechanism from Princes of Florence coupled with some random events.  Greg talks about theme and reading the cards.  I agree with Greg on this many times.  We actually read the cards in Lords of Waterdeep.  In neither game does it really matter for game play and many people find it tedious.  Bottom line, collect this and this and this and this to fulfill a goal by going to areas with limited access.  Yedo is a superior game in depth than Lords of Waterdeep for gamers.  My old age tends to make me enjoy the straightforward, faster Lords of Waterdeep for the similar experience.  With fast players, I would happily play again but have no plans to acquire.

Ratings:

4 (Love it!):  Greg Schloesser
3 (Like it):   Ted C
2 (Neutral):
1 (Not for me):

Several months later, I was given a classroom full of 15 students from grades 4-6 (9-12-year-olds) with 4 days to teach them how to design games and give them the materials to do so.  I was also given a classroom with a very cool Smart Board, and was excited to finally be able to use one.

Each day, we had the full 4 hours from 8 a.m. until noon to learn, play, design and build.   This was both exciting and a little scary.  I had never had so much time with such young students to teach them about game design and help them design their own games.  Would it be too much time to fill?  Would they eventually lose interest?  Could they stay focused enough to get some games finished in time for the presentation afternoon on Friday?

On Tuesday, I met the class.  I was pleased to see that it was almost perfectly divided between the 3 grades, and also between boys and girls. I introduce myself briefly, showed them several prototypes of mine that were eventually published, then showed them the published versions.  I asked them if they thought that they could design games too.  Then I showed them a wonderful German television feature about the Brand family.  The husband and wife team of Inka and Markus have become one of the most prolific game design teams in Germany during the past 5 years, and their young children have followed in their footsteps with two published designs of their own—one of them even winning the German Game Award (Deutscher Spiele Preis) for best children’s game!

The kids were really pumped after watching the video. “So, do you think you’d like to design games, too?” I asked them.  They responded with a resounding “Ja!”

I then asked each of them to introduce themselves with two bits of information:  name, and favorite game.  Surprisingly, even in Germany, most of them answered the second question with either Monopoly, Risk, or Mensch ärgere dich nicht! (their version of Sorry! or Parchisi).  One 4th grade girl named Hannah was the only one to list The Settlers of Catan among her favorites.

After that, I began my lecture, taking advantage of that funky new Smart Board. I talked about 3 elements that are in most games, whether board games, computer games, or sports.  They are:

1)   Strategy

2)   Luck

3)   Dexterity

Every game has at least one of these elements, I said, and most games combine varying degrees of at least two of them.

It was then time to give them a quick introduction to the different types of games out there.  I thought that it would be good to expand their minds beyond the “oldies” that they listed as the only games they knew.  If I was to teach them how to design modern board games, then they needed to be brought up to speed.  After all, we were using a Smart Board in the classroom, and they were still playing Monopoly!

I divided them into four groups to play Bamboleo, Packeis im Pol (Hey! That’s My Fish!), Heckmeck am Bratwurmeck (Pickomino), and 6 Nimmt! (Slide 5). When some of the groups finished early, I pulled out Diamant (Incan Gold). I selected these games because they were all quick to teach and play, and provided a relatively broad spectrum of modern games.  Bamboleo was the the dexterity game, Hey, That’s My Fish was the pure strategy game that also utilized tiles, Pickomino was the very original dice game, 6 Nimmt was a great example of a very different type of card game, and Diamant was an original but simple “push your luck” game with attractive components.

Afterwards, we discussed which of the 3 elements—and to what degrees—each game possessed. Then, the students gave feedback about what they liked and didn’t like.

-       Bamboleo did not go over well with its group because they really had a difficult time balancing the plate of objects during set-up, and it usually tipped over too early in the game.

-       Pickomino was boring, the students said, because you were doing the same thing over and over and had to wait quite a while before it was your turn.

-       The boys who played Slide 5 liked it quite a bit, especially when the cards unexpectedly penalized their opponents, which generated a lot of groans and cheers.

-       The group who played Hey, That’s My Fish! liked the simple but thematic rules, and the tactics that made you think without making your brain hurt. The game was fun to play, they said, but not enough that they necessarily wanted to play it again right away.

-       Diamant was an instant hit, and the only game that they continued to pull off the shelf to play over and over during the week, whenever they wanted to take a break from their own designs.  It’s really shame that Schmidt Spiele in Germany has let this one go out of print, and it’s nearly impossible to find even a used copy anywhere here.

We also discussed the components that each game used: game board, cards, dice, tiles, figures, and specialty pieces (wooden blocks, money, chips, gems, etc.).

Next, it was time to talk about game design and how one might go about making a new game.  I admitted that at least some of the building blocks used in every game have been used before.  Like notes in a piece of music, however, they can be recombined endlessly into new works.

Sometimes, it’s helpful to start by making modifications to games we know well.  I took out a little cloth bag and had the students push the desks to the side so that we could sit in a circle in the middle of the room. Then I announced—to plenty of groaning and eye rolls—that we were going to play Der Plumpsack geht rum, a well-known children’s game that is akin to our Duck Duck Goose.

“You don’t want to play a game you played in Kindergarten?” I asked.  “Fine.  Let’s change a rule to make it more exciting to you now.”  Every round, we changed another rule.  The students suggested new ways of moving around the circle, different ways of placing the bag so that it might be more difficult to detect, and many other variants.  We even had the beginnings of a deduction variant.  Even better was to listen to them brainstorm ideas and then debate their viability with each other.  Playing a simple children’s game turned into a real problem solving-session—similar to the process of board game design.

Next, it was time for another short, grade-school-level lecture on my “Vitruvian Triangle” of game design: theme, rules, and components.

The theme, I explained, can be an inspiration to the designer, a device for internalizing the rules for the players, and something that also immerses them in the “story” of the game.  I had each of them write down one or more themes that they were interested in.

The rules, I continued, are the goals and boundaries of the world you are creating with your game.  You are much like an author writing a story.  You write the first chapter: the setting or starting position.  And you write the last chapter: the goal and how it ends.  The players, however, are given the freedom to write the rest of the story, albeit within the framework you have give them.  The way they play the game—how they face the challenges of the game and those posed by their opponents, and how they overcome obstacles and reach the goal—is different every time in a well-designed game.  I had each of them write down a possible goal for their game.  Then they were to write how the game started.  Finally, I emphasized the importance of  player decisions and interaction, and had each of them write down some decisions they wanted the players to be able to make, and how players could interact—positively or negatively—with their opponents.

The components, I added, were usually the last thing to be considered, unless the game had a strong dexterity element. There are standard components, of course, but one can also use just about anything in a game.  In fact, one does not need fancy components at all for a prototype.  I showed them my bag of multi-colored plastic bottle caps as an example, and I also distributed bags of wooden bits and collectible card sleeves for each of them to use for their own designs.

The remainder of the day was spent beginning their game designs, and I tried to make it to each desk before lunchtime.  Some of the students formed groups to work on a single game collectively, while others preferred to work alone.

I was very impressed by the students during the day.  They were attentive most of the time and it seemed that the biggest distractions during my short lectures were when they had ideas for their games and couldn’t resist writing them down or whispering to each other about them!

On Wednesday, I showed the students a 30-minute video on the subject of games that a German television program had done, which included a segment interviewing me and showing every step of my design process, from research and prototyping to playtesting at the Spielwiese gaming cafe.

Then they got right to work on the designs, and I began my “tour” of the tables.  There were 9 game projects in progress between the 15 students, and the most challenging part of leading the workshop was trying to make myself available to all of them.  Still, this was the part that I enjoyed the most, seeing the excitement in their eyes as they turned their creativity loose. It was fun to be able to encourage them in their work, but I also did not shy away from challenging them to remember what we had talked about the previous day.

In particular, the inclusion of meaningful decisions in a game was difficult for most of them to grasp.  They had plenty of ideas about how players could get from the beginning to the end of the story, but it was all very deterministic, usually decided by die rolls and randomly drawn event cards. It made me realize again how difficult this area is for any designer, no matter what age.  Random elements are part of most good games, but making sure players have ways of mitigating these—or minimizing their effects—is so important.  Decision trees are also important in allowing the players room to play creatively within the game system, the freedom to write the story of each game. Most of my work in guiding them with their designs was in helping them create those meaningful decisions for the players of their games.

Of course, when teaching children, it is a thin line to walk between the extremes of allowing them to do whatever they want and taking complete control of their work.  I tried not to change their prototypes into something I would want to play, but at the same time, I wanted to at least help them see what they would want to play over and over again.  In the end, they were able to keep many of the random elements in their games, but I helped them find ways that players could both prepare and react to these, as well as giving them different ways to reach the games’ goals.

One of the other issues, which is problematic for designers of all ages, is that they had so many ideas it was difficult for them to filter them all.  I often found myself asking them, “What is the core idea of this game?  What is the thing you like to do the most when you play this game? “  Then I challenged them to eliminate the elements that had little or no relationship with the core concept.

For example, one team had made several decks of cards with quiz questions and funny activities to complete, but they had also made a board with so many other spaces that forced player figures to go forwards and backwards, and it was all connected to a die roll.  The core concept of the game was the cards and the fun in answering questions and doing silly activities (or watching the opponents doing silly activities).  “Why make a board that keeps you from drawing and acting out these cards?” I asked.  Additionally, they had an intricate monetary system along with roadblocks that could be “bought.”  This, too, distracted from the main goal of their game.  It’s quite natural  for any designer to put every idea into that first game, especially when it’s a one-week school project, but I think it was also good for them to be challenged to focus, and it was a reminder for me to focus in my own work as well.

On Thursday, the students were ready to learn about playtesting.  Each one wrote the name of their game on the top of a sheet of paper with the word “Commentary” underneath.  Then I encouraged each of them to play the games from their classmates and write what they liked and what they thought could be improved.

The students enjoyed playing each others’ games, and it prepared them well from the presentation afternoon, when all the other students from the school (grades 1-6) would visit over a two-hour period, and I would need plenty of demoers!

The remainder of the time on Friday was spent adding more art to the game boards and cards and, in the case of team projects, in creating multiple copies of the games so that each team member could have one.

Then the other students poured into the classroom, and I enjoyed seeing them fill up the tables of my students. Parents and schools are a little more careful about allowing pictures of their children these days, so I did not take any of the students themselves. But I will always have a “photograph” in my mind of their proud faces as they taught the games they had made during the week, first to the other students in the school, and then to their parents.

A 4th grader designed this Roman-themed resource-collecting and building game.

A simple card game using ascending and descending numbers.

Based on a short story written by the game designer, his game has duel winning conditions: either be the first to use your figure to build a tower in your color, or use your snail to build a house of different colors.

Another 2-player war game prototype using Risk mini-minis.

Climbing Rapunzel’s tower requires skill, luck and being able to buy the right weapons.

Translated “Find My Stuff,” it’s a bit like a pick up and delivery game.

• 2-4 players
• By: Mercury Games
• Designed by: Mark Klassen
• Review by Ted Cheatham

Running a hospital is hard work.  Not only do you have to design your complex and compete with other hospitals, but you have patients that keep showing for treatment.  Also, watch out for contagions that can really ruin your day.

In a game of quarantine, each player starts with a simple hospital lobby and four treatment rooms; one each of green, red, blue, and yellow.  Each treatment room can cure a patient of that that specific color.

Here is what happens on a turn:

The game  brings some great ideas together in a straight- forward light-to-medium weight strategy game that will play 2-4 players in about an hour.

There is a nice puzzle element as patients line up to your hospital.  There is efficiency planning on how to maximize your actions to get people into your hospital and cured.  Curing patients gives you income to enhance your facility. Do you purchase treatment rooms to be able to cure more people?  They cost two income each and unless you can move patients through them and cure them fast enough you may not get your return on investment.  

Special rooms bring out a whole new challenge to customizing your establishment.  They are a good buy because they always offer a bonus power to the player that acquires them, and they will give you a victory point at the end of the game.  The key to this part of the game is price setting.  How do you price these tiles?  You may want to set a price that you know only you can pay (for example, if only you had cured green cubes you could set those as the price and no one else could afford it).   Or you may want one other person to acquire the tile so you can get a bonus action marker.  Perhaps you want just the bonus action markers while you tempt the other players to spend their resources.

There is also an interesting element to tile placement.  Besides the standard of requiring a door path to the hospital lobby, there is the whole concept of building nurse stations (four tiles in a square pattern).  Nurse stations give you a victory point at the end of the game.  However, during the game, if you are contaminated adjacent to a nurse station, you get double contamination.  This can severely bog you down as you try to cure patients.

Finally, the gray contamination cubes are just a pain.  If there is anything that may put people off, it is the gray cubes.  They are designed to just slow the game down and give a bit of “take that”feel to the game.  It does add a bit of player interaction other than the race and competition to add tiles to your hospital.  As long as players are fair and managing the game, the gray cubes do not get out of hand and they fit the theme of the game well.  Also, there are times you really do need to slow a player down.  With a random draw of four cubes every turn, you just have to cope with your luck.

There is a lot to like in this game.  For me, Quarantine is a keeper and one that can easily be played by casual gamers who just want to have a good time and think a little.

Love it:

Like it:  Ted C.

Neutral:

Not for me:

Reviewed by Luke Hedgren

2 Dudes at Essen Spiel ‘12

Hey dude, what’s happening?

Nothing, just trying to figure out if I can fit one more game in my suitcase. Terra Mystica looks alright, but that box is huge. It probably won’t be that great anyway. Sounds kinda dumb, actually. Play anything cool?

Yeah, so, I played this really cool filler, You should grab it..

I think I know the one you are talking about. It’s been getting some buzz.

Its a card game, really simple, comes in a small box. It has these cards that are actions…

Oh, yeah, and each player has 2 of them, face down. You do an action, and others can call your bluff. It’s called Coup, right? Small company, will never get widely distributed I bet.

Uh, no, see, it’s a really simplistic design. You just draw one card each turn, an…..

Ah, yeah, yeah, I played that. Only 16 cards, totally luck based. Seems totally random. Some Japanese thing. Love Letter, right? Seems like a dud.

No. Its not that, either. It’s called DrachenSchatten. You know, Dragon’s Shadow.

The dragon did what?

Classy. Anyway, there are 8 piles of town cards, and 8 piles of dungeon cards, face down. Each turn you draw a card from one of two groups of piles of cards. Basically, you either go to town, to get an item card, or you go to the dungeon, to encounter a monster, get a better item, or get some treasure.

When you choose one or the other, then what?

You just flip a card from one of the piles. That’s it.

Sounds……fun? I guess.

Well, that’s not totally all of it. Other than flipping a card over, you can use any of your items you’ve already collected, before or after flipping. But, you can only ever use an item once for the whole game. Then they are tapped.

[cough] Trademark/copyright/patent/something infringement [cough]

Ok, “used”, whatever.

What do the cards do?

Stuff like let you look ahead at the cards you flip, take extra turns, reuse a different used item, protect you from monsters, steal or destroy other people’s items….

Oh, it’s one of those kind of games. I get the item that lets me take another turn, and before I even get to use it, you steal it. Lame!

No, it’s not like that. You can’t steal or destroy an item until after it has been used. So, you always get to use the items you draw.

Now, why is it useful to steal or destroy a used item? It’s already spent, right?

Well, that’s one of the ways to win. If you collect 7 different items, you win the game.

Sounds, um, very exciting. And dragon-y. [rolls eyes]

Well, there are two other ways to win, too, smartass. You can kill 3 monsters…

Now you are talking. How do I kill? I like killing monsters.

You collect a monster killing item, then you run into the right kind of monster in the dungeon piles. You tap, er, use your item, and poof, dead monster. Do that 3 times to win.

You say “monsters”, plural?

There are mostly dragons, but there are a few hydras mixed in so that you don’t feel too safe when adventuring with just a dragon-protecting item.

Safe? Safe from what?

Oh, sorry, so if you run into a monster without protection, you lose all your cards.

Like, “all” all? Even all my previously killed monsters?

Yeah, all.

Ugh. So, I can collect stuff (boring) or I can kill stuff (awesome). You said there was a third way to win?

The dungeon piles have treasures. Get 3 to win. No special equipment needed.

If there is one thing I like more than killing monsters, it’s getting treasure. I think I’m going straight for that.

That’s actually a valid strategy, I’ve found. Early on, you don’t have anything to lose in going to the dungeon. Like, literally, nothing to lose. [Edit - This is actually not quite right. See below. - Luke] So, go there, maybe grab an early treasure, or nice item or two, first. Once you have something to lose, go to the town for some monster protection.

Oh, yeah? Hmm, sounds like you’ve played a bunch?

Yeah, I love it. Its easy to explain. Takes about 15 minutes, tops. Plays 2-4. Thematic. I mean, the torch lets you look at what’s ahead, and the boots let you take another turn.

Just like in real life.

Exactly. The 3 winning conditions really dovetail into one another well. You might get a treasure, then get a dragon shield to protect your treasure, and decide that monsters is the way to go. Halfway there, you realize that you almost have the 7 items you need to win. And, it’s not too “take-that”-y. Stealing and destroying items is all in the name of getting to a win condition, not (necessarily) out of spite.

Sounds like you need to play it risky to win, then?

Not necessarily. There are just enough unique items in the safe town pile to allow a slow, safe item victory, too. I’ve seen all three win conditions multiple times, and different levels of risky-ness take the victory as well.

Fine, you talked me into it. Where is the Adlung booth?

Its over there. On the way, wanna stop by the IELLO booth? The line should be pretty short to get that Richard Garfield card signed, right?

Thoughts of Other Opinionated Gamers

Dale Yu: OK, I wouldn’t have even picked this one up at Essen (and in fact, I didn’t…)  But Luke is in my group, and he loves this game, and as a result, I’ve probably played it about 4,235 times since Essen 2012.  And you know what, of the Adlung games, this is one of the best that I’ve played both in terms of fun as well as staying power.  It’s a little 15 minute game that fits in your pocket that always elicits groans or cheers when the mystery chosen card is flipped over.  Having three different win conditions keeps the game from feeling same-y, and there are just enough item cards that allow you “attack” the other players to give you choices on what to do.  In the end, the player who chooses the best random cards will win the game, but hey – sometimes that’s just what you need!

Joe Huber (played twice): Well, there is a game in the box.  But – there’s a huge amount of luck involved, and not a lot of productive options.  The second game I played was a good example of this – the first player drew, on the first two turns, protection against dragons and hydras.  Then on three of the next four turns, he drew treasures; the other turn, he drew an object, so he was never in danger.  It’s not an unpleasant game – but I disagree strongly with Dale that it stands up to Adlung’s best.  I’d far rather play Adlungland, or Winhard, or Kathai, or Die Fugger – or, from Essen 2012, Like Dice.  It’s not the Adlung game I’ve enjoyed least, certainly – but I feel no need to own it, or even any great willingness to play it again.  If you’re picking up a dragon-themed game from Adlung, Zauberschwert & Drachenei (from the same designer) is a much better choice in my opinion.

Dan Blum: I mostly agree with Joe here. It’s not awful, but there’s very little going on; in particular, the decisions you make are based on almost no information, so you might as well flip a coin most of the time (unless you have a torch, of course, but in that case the decision is usually too easy). I think there are too many cards in the game: with, say, half the number of cards it wouldn’t take many turns before you can actually use your knowledge of the cards drawn to make decisions.

I also should note that Luke is wrong when he says that at the start you might as well go to the cave because you have nothing to lose: since everyone starts with a village card, you always have at least one card to lose.

(Luke – Huh, totally missed that rule. Doesn’t change much except my too strong claim of “literally nothing to lose.” Fine, how about “not much to lose.” Thanks, Dan.)

Ratings:

4 (Love it!): Luke Hedgren
3 (Like it): John P, Dale Y
2 (Neutral):  Joe Huber, Dan Blum
1 (Not for me):

- Flowerpower -

Mark Jackson:  The decidedly cheesy cover to this Kosmos 2-player game makes you go “ewwww”… but underneath this bizarre exterior is a nifty tile-laying game that offers some interesting choices & fast-paced gameplay. This is a tremendous two-player game of building gardens that can be played “friendly” or “cutthroat”… and enjoyed both ways.

Tiles are drawn from a common bag – each tile has two flowers (out of ten types) side-by-side in domino fashion. You “plant” the tiles on your side of the board, attempting to build connected beds of 3+ flowers in order to score points when the tiles run out. Three times per game you can “plant” a tile on your opponent’s side of the board as a weed by flipping it over to the non-flower side… giving you some ability to slow or stop your opponent from completing flower beds.

There is also a “community garden” area between your two gardens, which both players can use – but you only score a flower bed if you have at least one flower of that bed in your personal garden.  Using the community space wisely is one of the keys to winning the game.

- Spinball -

Brian Leet:  Spinball is a clever dexterity game premised on that delightful movement you get when you propel a ping-pong ball away from you with massive amounts of backspin. It skitters away across the table, and then turns backwards. With practice you can create consistent returns, arcs, even rebounds.  The opposing player gets to set blockers so that the game doesn’t devolve into simply repeating the same shot.  Popular with groups I played in about six or seven years ago, I haven’t seen this game in some time.  But, if you are ever at an event or house where it is available, give it a try!

- Age of Steam -

Andrea “Liga” Ligabue:  Talking about Age of Steam is talking about my first meeting with Martin’s great design skill.  It was love at first sight.  Age of Steam is one of the best, according to my opinion, track building games ever.  What makes it so great is the perfect mechanism, the challenge of the game: important decisions every turn, knowing that missing in the start can put you out of the game (something most designers now try to avoid).

I like how every game plays differently according to the goods locations or where the urbanization actions will put the cities.  Every action in the game has to be weighed carefully.

A game I think every gamer has to play at least 4-5 times in his life.

Of course the huge amount of maps released have increased the lifespan of this title, but I think the base version is still challenging to play after almost 10 years.

- Puerto Rico -

Andrea “Liga” Ligabue:  The title that was on top of the BGG rankings for many years (and is still in the top 5 after more than 10 years) and the ancestor of the roles mechanism used by many other titles in the following years.  A great game that suffers only if someone on the table is really worse than the others.  What I really like in Puerto Rico is how you always have to adapt to what other players are doing.  Not a real direct interaction but one of the games you have to take care most of what opponents are doing and argue where they are driving.

No dominant strategy, the possibility to build different production engines, the possibility to try and invent many different combos, the possibility to fight for the victory until the end are some of the great feature of this evergreen.  It is not accidental that many young designers give to Andreas Seyfarth the status of Master.

Rick Thornquist:  There are lots of games that I like, but very few I admire.  At the top of my short admiration list is Puerto Rico.  The game is simply a beautiful design, with everything you want in a game done to perfection.  All the mechanisms work wonderfully together, there is practically zero downtime, there’s tons of player interaction with little, if any of it, being direct, with tons of strategy and very little luck.  Other games may have taken over the top spot at BGG but for my money, Puerto Rico is still the best.

Ben McJunkin: This may not surprise you, given my penchant for more complex Eurogames, but I consider Puerto Rico to be the first real “gateway” game I played, marking the start of my experience with the hobby.  I grew up playing games of various sorts, including traditional card games like Hearts and Spades, abstracts like Othello, and epic games like Risk with (inebriated) college friends.  None of these resonated with me, but I considered them innocuous pastimes.  I was even introduced to Settlers of Catan years before I got around to playing Puerto Rico, but I honestly did not view it as any different than Risk or Monopoly – it was just something to do with your hands while you socialized with friends.

Puerto Rico changed my view of games.  It seamlessly blended challenging decisions and nearly zero randomness with a coherent and approachable theme in a reasonable time frame.  It was the sort of game that you could play competitively while remaining sociable, because the game’s design itself presented a venue for cleverness and interaction without confrontation.  From that first game, I quickly graduated to increasingly complex and immersive titles, but in many respects Puerto Rico remains a paradigm of Eurogame design.  It is unquestionably the touchstone for my understanding of the gaming hobby more broadly.

- Canal Grande -

Jeffrey Allers:  The pie division problem, otherwise known as “I cut, you choose,” seems an obvious basis for a board game, yet very few designers have tackled it.  One of the challenges of this mechanism is to make the division interesting enough without creating too many options that induce analysis paralysis.  In the better-known board game, San Marco, Moon and Weissblum solve this issue by keeping the division between two players at a time. In a 3-player game (and when only 3 players are left in a round), however, the game can drag as the divider contemplates every possible combination for the three offerings.

Canal Grande is what San Marco wants to be.  Although devoid of the beautiful map of Venice and cool plastic bridges, the heart of that game is still here, and this time, it’s strictly 2-player.  As with San Marco, this is a majorities battle, and the action cards offer interesting options for manipulating these in your favor. And, as in San Marco, the Limit Cards are the real innovation.  Once a player has a certain amount of them, she is out of the round. This gives the divider more options, making asymmetric divisions possible (more cards in one pile can include more limit cards).  It’s an extra level of tension that makes this one of my favorite two-player games, and the mechanism–though more than a decade old–is still fresh.

Larry:  While I disagree with Jeff that Canal Grande is better than San Marco, I wholeheartedly agree that the two-player version is obscenely underrated.  Moon and Weissblum did a great job in translating the essence of San Marco to a 2-player card game format.  It’s one of my favorite games for two, yet hardly ever seems to get played.  One reason may be the design of the cards in Canal Grande.  They are not only spectacularly ugly, but their functionality is poor as well.  A lose-lose proposition if ever there was one!  Despite this, this is a game that I’ll always jump at the chance to play–it’s that good.

To be continued…

My wife and I have enjoyed several vacations to Italy.  Not only do we enjoy the rich history, gorgeous scenery and intriguing culture, but we also delight in the fabulous cuisine.  While the country is well known for its amazing pasta, their delicious fare has far more variety than that famous staple.  In every town—small or large—dozens of restaurants can be found, each offering a wide assortment of delectable dishes.  I’m not sure I’ve ever had a bad meal in Italia.

Ristorante Italia by the design team of Marco Mutta, Riccardo Guerra and Giulio Guerra establishes players in the role of restaurant owners trying to create mouth-watering dishes that will lure customers and excite food critics.  To accomplish this, players must formulate a complimentary menu, procure the proper ingredients and compliment the fare with the appropriate wine.  While the food may impress the critics, it is still necessary to advertise to attract the public and the all-important celebrities.  This will insure a steady source of customers and income.  The most successful restaurateur will become the toast of the town and his restaurant will become the new hot spot.

Each player receives a board that represents their restaurant.  There are spaces for the recipes in four categories—starters, first and second courses, and desserts—and the wine rack can hold four bottles.  There are also spaces for various markers that can be obtained during the game, including VIPs, gold stars and golden spoons.  Additional space is provided for bonus cards and restaurant expansions, which are only available when playing the advanced version.  Players begin the game with 25 coins, which are kept in a nifty and atmospheric measuring cup.

In addition to the score and “Cook-o-Meter” tracks, the central board depicts shops that stock the various ingredients, separated by categories—fish, meat, vegetables, fruit and general.  Each shop holds six ingredients, which when needed are drawn randomly from the supply.  In another nod to atmosphere, the supply of tokens is segregated into six different crates.  Sadly, the crates are fairly flimsy and they do not conceal the identity of the ingredients, which need to be drawn randomly.  Cloth bags would have been a better choice, albeit less atmospheric.

The game is played over the course of four seasons, with each season having three rounds followed by three scoring rounds.  Each turn, players execute two actions, choosing from:

Draw a New Recipe or Wine card.  The player selects one of the four categories of recipe cards or wine cards, draws five and keeps one.  Recipe cards are kept in hand, while wine cards are immediately placed in the restaurant’s wine rack—after paying the cost, of course.

There are numerous considerations when making these selections.  Recipes will provide income and prestige points.   A restaurant will ultimately be judged on the quality of their menu, so there is an incentive to create elaborate fare with an abundance of prestige points.  However, these dishes require more ingredients and are more difficult and time consuming to complete; they are also more expensive to acquire.   A complete four-course meal may bring accolades, especially if the menu is consistently themed by category and/or specialty.  So, players should plan accordingly when selecting new recipes.  Further, each dish is complemented by a specific wine, so players should attempt to match these whenever possible.  This will enhance a restaurant’s income and prestige.

Go Shopping.  It takes the proper ingredients to complete a recipe, and these ingredients must be available at the market.  With each action, a player may purchase one ingredient and/or clear all ingredients from one of the market stalls.  Thus, if a desired ingredient is not currently available, clearing and refilling the market may result in the ingredient suddenly becoming available.  A player can store up to six ingredients in his pantry, so one can plan prepare for completing multiple or more intricate recipes.

After every three action rounds, three scoring rounds are conducted.  During the Critic Round, players place completed recipes to their restaurant, expending the required ingredients.  A player may only have two of each course, so proper planning is essential.  The Critic judges the best new recipe amongst all restaurants, awarding the top players with movement up the Cook-o-Meter track.  Players earn victory points at game’s end based on their position on this track, and must progress to specific levels in order to be able to complete more complex recipes.  The most complex recipes cannot be completed until a player has advanced nine spaces on the track, a feat which is close to impossible in the basic game.  The advanced game provides a method of purchasing advances, but this costs actions, which are in a finite supply.  Progression on the track should be a bit easier, as the more difficult recipes rarely come into play.

Players next bid (advertise) to attract a “VIP” endorsement.  This is a “closed fist” bid, with the high bidder paying the amount bid and receiving VIP and star tokens, which are worth victory points at game’s end.  It pays to conserve some money for this all important bid, but one must still be careful as one-half of the amount bid is lost even when losing the bid.

Finally, each player receives income based on the recipes and wine they have completed.  This is cumulative, so money becomes quite plentiful as the game progresses.  Indeed, it is too plentiful.  There is little or no tension when making purchasing decisions as money is never a concern after the first round.  The game would be significantly improved if money was tighter, as this would make purchasing decisions more agonizing.

Four rounds are conducted in this fashion—three action rounds followed by three scoring rounds—with additional final scoring after the fourth round.  In the final scoring round, each player must present a full dinner comprised of all four courses.  The player presenting the best dinner receives a “golden spoon” token.  Further, any player who presented a fully themed menu in either category and/or specialty will receive bonus tiles.  All of these tiles are worth victory points.  Finally, each player presents their single best recipe for the “National Cooking Tournament”, with the winners receiving golden spoons.

Victory is determined by adding points earned from a variety of sources, including position on the Cook-o-Meter track, value of all completed recipes and wine in the wine rack, the value of all stars, spoons, category and specialty tiles earned, and bonuses for each recipe wherein the player possesses the complimentary wine.  As in a Stefan Feld game, there are a lot of ways to earn victory points.

The advanced rules add the ability to expand one’s  restaurant with additional rooms, acquire bonus cards and purchase advances on the Cook-O-Meter track by taking cooking classes.  These can all be useful, but with only two actions per turn, it reduces what a player can accomplish.  It also adds length to a game that is already too long.

The theme of Ristorante Italia is delightful.  The concept of selecting recipes and purchasing the ingredients to complete them is fun.  I also like the idea of having to plan one’s menu in terms of theme and specialty, and having to complement the dishes with the appropriate wine.  All of these are great ideas that fit the theme well.

Sadly, the game has numerous problems.  The scoring rounds can be rather fiddly and the rules are a bit confusing.  As mentioned earlier, progression up the Cook-o-Meter track is essential in order to complete the more complex recipes, which bring you the highest prestige and income.  Unfortunately, this progression can be very slow and sporadic, which often means many players cannot advance beyond first or second level recipes.  This severely limits their options, causing them to fall further and further behind the leaders.  There should be more opportunity to progress on the track, or the levels at which players can create more valuable recipes should be lower.

The biggest problem, however, is the over-abundance of money.  After the completion of the first round, cash is plentiful.  Recipes—and especially wine—bring windfalls of cash, removing any purchase-making tension from the game.  There are rarely any budgetary considerations; there is plenty of cash to purchase what you desire.  I am certain that this is not the case when operating a restaurant in the real world, and the abundance of cash here creates a game with little or no tension.

Unfortunately, due to the factors described above, I must reluctantly give the game a thumbs-down.  I certainly give it good marks for theme and concept, but its absence of tension and problems with the Cook-o-Meter progression are just too much to overcome.  Perhaps further development would have alleviated these problems and markedly improved the game.  Industrious gamers may want to tinker with this to improve it, but as is, this restaurant simply doesn’t earn my personal “Critic’s Choice” award.

Thoughts of other Opinionated Gamers:

Andrea “Liga” Ligabue: I played Ristorante Italia many times and I find it a nice family game. Of course it is not a gamers game and the issues Gregg point out are true but not so powerful to ruin the pleasure of a session. Of course with some more play-test the game could be better, but this seems to be the main problem of our times. Materials and graphics are nice and the tasty theme and the quite easy basic rules make it a nice gateway game.

Ratings:

4 (Love it!):
3 (Like it): Andrea “Liga” Ligabue
2 (Neutral): Greg Schloesser
1 (Not for me):

Tom had two primary claims in his article:

• “The Spiel des Jahres has a peculiar knack for honoring great designers for some of their worst games.”, and
• “…it appears the award diverts designers’ attention from their more innovative and enduring creations. “

So, do these assertions hold?

The place we’ll need to go for objective data is BoardGameGeek.  But how do we measure these claims?  The claim that designers see some of their worst games selected for the Spiel des Jahres is easy enough to measure – where does the Spiel des Jahres winner fall, in ratings, among the designer’s offerings?  Since a Spiel des Jahres award brings exposure to a game, we’ll ignore rank (which is significantly impacted by the number of ratings), and just use average rating, for all games with at least 100 ratings.  If Tom’s claim is true, one would expect Spiel des Jahres winners to hold a low position among a designer’s games in average ratings – particularly given that BGG tends to look for (and thus rate higher) heavier games than the Spiel des Jahres jury.

To determine whether the award diverts designer’s attention away from their more innovative and enduring creations, we’ll look at the 5 years _before_ the designer won the award, and the 5 years (or time available) _after_, to see how their output has been effected, and look at whether their design with the highest average rating – presumably their most innovative and enduring creation – came before or after their first Spiel des Jahres award.  (We’ll use their first award, among those with multiple awards, because it’s something we can look at for all winners, not just repeat winners, and because if such an effect exists it would presumably begin from the moment they’ve won the award.)

As Tom’s article focused on more recent winners – 1994-present – we’ll look in the same range.

Andreas Seyfarth

Spiel des Jahres 1994: Manhattan

Spiel des Jahres 2006: Thurn & Taxis

Andreas Seyfarth has never been a prolific designer; not including expansions or new editions, he’s only released five games with 100+ ratings.

Manhattan rank: 4^th of 5

Thurn & Taxis rank: 3^rd of 5

Neither of these is his “worst” game.  And in fact, both have a higher average rating than his other major release, Waldmeister, which falls just short of 100 ratings.

Five years before Manhattan: No games released.

Five years after Manhattan: No games released.

Five years before Thurn & Taxis: Puerto Rico, San Juan

Five years after Thurn & Taxis: Airships

Highest average rating: Puerto Rico (released _after_ Manhattan)

The data here is mixed.  Seyfarth’s “best” game clearly was designed after he won the Spiel des Jahres, but on the whole his limited published content makes it difficult to say that the award has had any significant impact upon his work.

Klaus Teuber

Spiel des Jahres 1995: Die Siedler von Catan

(Three previous awards) 

Teuber has 43 ranked games on BGG with at least 100 ratings.

Settlers rank: 1 of 43

Clearly, this is accepted as Teuber’s _best_ design, not his worst.

Five years before Settlers: Adel Verpflichtet, Drunter & Drüber, Vernissage, Der Fliegende Holländer

Five years after Settlers: Löwenherz, Die Siedler von Nürnberg, Catan Card Game, Starfarers of Catan, Entdecker, Die Ritter von der Haselnuss

Highest average rating (besides Settlers or Settlers derivates): Löwenherz (released _after_ Settlers)

The data here is fairly clear.  While Teuber had two Spiel des Jahres winners in the half-decade prior to Settlers, even ignoring Settlers derivatives his published designs after Settlers are the ones more appreciated on BGG.

Wolfgang Kramer

Spiel des Jahres 1996: El Grande

Spiel des Jahres 1999: Tikal

Spiel des Jahres 2000: Torres

 (Two previous awards)

Kramer has 66 ranked games on BGG with at least 100 ratings.

El Grande rank: 1 of 66

Tikal rank: 3 of 66

Torres rank: 6 of 66

All three of Kramer’s designs rank very high among his offerings on BGG.

Five years before El Grande: Big Boss, Expedition, 6 Nimmt!, Top Race, Detroit-Cleveland Grand Prix, Columbus

Between El Grande and Tikal: Haste Worte?, Tycoon, El Caballero, Take 5!, Magalon

Five years after Torres: Maharaja, Hacienda, Mexica, Gulo Gulo, Pueblo, Goldland, Wildlife, Australia, Tanz der Hornochsen!, That’s Life!, Sunken City, Who’s the Ass?, Saga, FBI, Vampire

Highest average rating (besides El Grande): The Princes of Florence (released _after_ El Grande)

Kramer had success both before and after his aware.  However, the most interesting effect here is the _number_ of releases before and after his impressive Spiel des Jahres streak – in the five years prior to El Grande’s win – after he’d already won two awards – he had six games published.  In the five years after, he had _15_ games published.  Tom gave Kramer as an exception to his hypothesis, but this data suggests one real advantage of the award – greater demand for the designer’s games.

Werner Hodel

Spiel des Jahres 1997: Mississippi Queen

Mississippi Queen (and the expansion, The Black Rose) are Hodel’s only published games, so there’s no useful data here.

Alan R. Moon

Spiel des Jahres 1998: Elfenland

Spiel des Jahres 2004: Ticket to Ride

Alan has 49 ranked games on BGG with at least 100 ratings.

Elfenland rank: 14 of 49

Ticket to Ride rank: 3 of 49 (behind two Ticket to Ride sequels)

Definitely two of Alan’s better games, as BGG sees it, not his worst.

Five years before Elfenland: Reibach & Co., Freight Train, Mush

Between Elfenland and Ticket to Ride: Union Pacific, San Marco, Capitol, Santa Fe Rails, Clippers, Europa Tour, 10 Days in Africa, New England, Das Amulett, 10 Days in the USA, Canal Grande, Andromeda, Wongar, King of the Elves, King’s Breakfast, Mammoth Hunters, Lumberjack, Gold und Rum, Time Pirates

Five years after Ticket to Ride: Ticket to Ride: Nordic Countries, Ticket to Ride: Europe, Ticket to Ride: Märklin, Incan Gold, 10 Days in Asia, Diamant, Skyline 3000, Ticket to Ride: The Card Game, Walk the Dogs, Gracias, Surf’s Up, Dude!

Highest average rating (besides Ticket to Ride or Ticket to Ride derivatives): Airlines Europe (released _after_ both Elfenland and Ticket to Ride)

If you want to make a case for a designer’s innovation being negatively impacted by the Spiel des Jahres award, this is the best case so far.  But at that, the data doesn’t really support that conclusion; Alan had much more success and innovation in his published designs the five years _after_ Elfenland won than in the five years preceding – and more in the five years after Ticket to Ride won than in the five years preceding Elfenland.  It’s only when you compare the period after Elfenland to the period after Ticket to Ride that you can make any claim that the Spiel des Jahres award has had a negative impact.  And even that’s questionable; it’s notable that Airlines Europe – which, while derived from a much earlier game, shows significant innovation in its development – is a post-Ticket to Ride design.

Klaus-Jürgen Wrede

Spiel des Jahres 2001: Carcassonne 

Wrede has 20 ranked games on BGG with at least 100 ratings.

Carcassonne rank: 2 of 20 (behind Carcassonne: Winter Edition)

Clearly not Wrede’s worst game.

Five years before Carcassonne: None

Five years after Carcassonne: Carcassonne: The City, Carcassonne: Hunters and Gatherers, The Downfall of Pompeii, Carcassonne: The Castle, The Ark of the Covenant, Mesopotamia, Carcassonne: The Discovery, Die Fugger, Krone & Schwert, Dragonriders, Anasazi

Highest average rating (besides Carcassonne or Carcassonne derivatives): The Downfall of Pompeii (released _after_ Carcassonne)

Frankly, Carcassonne put Wrede on the map; he’s had his greatest success with the game, but he’s had a wide variety of games published in the years since Carcassonne, and the award has undoubtedly helped him to see so many of his games hit the market.

Bill Payne

Spiel des Jahres 2002: Villa Paletti

Payne has not had any noteworthy designs published other than Villa Paletti.

Dirk Henn

Spiel des Jahres 2003: Alhambra

Henn has 17 ranked games on BGG with at least 100 ratings.

Alhambra rank: 5 of 17

While not acknowledged by BGG as his “best” game, Alhambra is far closer to his “best” than his “worst”.

Five years before Alhambra: Wallenstein (first edition), Atlantic Star,

Five years after Alhambra: Shogun, Alhambra: The Dice Game

Highest average rating: Wallenstein (second edition) (released _after_ Alhambra)

(Or, if you don’t count it, Shogun – also released after Alhambra)

Frankly, Henn’s period of greatest innovation was back in the early 1990s – long before he won the Spiel des Jahres.  It’s hard to argue that winning the award has significantly impacted his output; the largest effect has been to bring more of his early db Spiel games to a wider audience.

Thomas Liesching

Spiel des Jahres 2005: Niagara

Liesching has only two games on BGG with at least 100 ratings, another case of insufficient data to prove or disprove Tom’s hypothesis.

Michael Schacht

Spiel des Jahres 2007: Zooloretto 

Schacht has 48 ranked games on BGG with at least 100 ratings.

Zooloretto rank: 9 of 48 (Aquaretto ranks #2, Zooloretto Mini #5)

Once again, Schacht’s Spiel des Jahres winner is viewed as being far closer to his “best” design than his “worst” one.

Five years before Zooloretto: China, Coloretto, Hansa, Dschunke, Richelieu, Magna Grecia, Crazy Chicken, Industria, Mogul, Rat Hot, California, Paris Paris, Fist of Dragonstones, Der Elefant im Porzellanladen, Coloretto Amazonas, Architekton, The Hollywood! Card Game, Diabolo, Sushi Express, Hispaniola

Five years after Zooloretto: Aquaretto, Mondo Sapiens, Zooloretto Mini, Baldora, Africana, Mondo, Felinia, Industry, The Golden City, Coney Island, Shanghaien, Call to Glory, Zooloretto: The Dice Game, Gold!, Bürger, Baumeister & Co., Crazy Creatures of Dr. Doom, Boss Kito

Highest average rating: Web of Power (released _before_ Zooloretto)

On the whole, there’s no evidence that Schacht’s innovation has suffered in the least as a result of winning the Spiel des Jahres.  Of his top 10 games, five are post-Zooloretto, four are pre-Zooloretto, and one _is_ Zooloretto.

Reiner Knizia

Spiel des Jahres 2008: Keltis

Knizia has 169 ranked games on BGG with at least 100 ratings.

Keltis rank: 60 of 169 (Keltis: Das Orakel is the highest ranking of the Keltis derivatives at #16)

Not only is Keltis not Knizia’s “worst” – it’s comfortably in the top half.

Five years before Keltis: Lord of the Rings: The Confrontation (Deluxe Edition), Amun Re, Ingenious, Ingenious: Travel Edition, Carcassonne: The Castle, Whoowasit?, Blue Moon City, Razzia!, Blue Moon, Ribbit, Tower of Babel, Schatz der Drachen, Cheeky Monkey, Merchants, Palazzo, Medici vs. Strozzi, Pickomino, Genesis, Poison, Beowulf: The Legend, Geowulf: The Movie Board Game, Duell, Times Square, Great Wall of China, Risk Express, Mago Magino, Reiner Knizia’s Decathlon, Marco Polo Expedition, Euphrates & Tigris Card Game, King Arthur: The Card Game, Lord of the Rings, Minotaur Lords, Alles Tomate!, Bunte Runde, Easy Come, Easy Go, Tal der Abenteuer: Die Schatzsuche im Himalaja, Toppo, Code Cracker, Gravediggers, Reiner Knizia’s Amazing Flea Circus, Queen of the Cupcakes, Dead Man’s Treasure, Fish Eat Fish, Head-to-Head Poker, Dragon Parade, Double or Nothing, Escalation!, Little Italy, Pirates!, Spy, Battleship Express, Mmm… Brains!, Figaro, SuDoku: Das Kartenspiel, King Arthur, Penguin

Four years after Keltis: Keltis: Das Orakel, Priests of Ra, Keltis: Das Kartenspiel, Qin, Ra: The Dice Game, Jäger und Sammler, Indigo, FITS, Star Trek: Expeditions, Modern Art: The Card Game, Keltis: Das Würfelspiel, BITS, Keltis: Der Weg der Steine, Yin Yang, Abandon Ship, Samurai: The Card Game, Big Five, Speculatum, Heckmeck Barbecue, Callisto, Ingenious Challenges, The Hobbit, SWAT!, Genial Spezial, Mini FITS, Zombiegeddon, Buzz It!, Scary Tales: Snow White vs. The Giant, Scary Tales: Little Red vs. Pinocchio, Ramses Pyramid

Highest average rating: Euphrat & Tigirs (released _before_ Keltis)

While the data for other designers looked at so far does not point to a negative consequence from winning the Spiel des Jahres, here there’s a clear case to be made for it.  While most of Knizia’s gamer-oriented designs date from the late nineties, his published games in the years before Keltis’ release have been _much_ better received on BGG than in the years since.  Personally, I suspect this is more coincidental than intentional – but the data is clear.

Donald X. Vaccarino

Spiel des Jahres 2009: Dominion

Spiel des Jahres 2012: Kingdom Builder 

Vaccarino has 6 ranked games on BGG with at least 100 ratings.

Dominion rank: 2 of 6 (Dominion: Intrigue is #1)

Kingdom Builder rank: 3 of 6

Five years before Dominion: None

Between Dominion and Kingdom Builder: Dominion Intrigue

One year after Kingdom Builder: Infiltration, Gauntlet of Fools

Highest average rating (Besides Dominion, Dominion Intrigue, or Kingdom Builder): Infiltration (released _after_ Dominion)

Much as with Wrede, Vaccarino burst on to the scene with his Spiel des Jahres winner.  But unlike Hodel or Payne, it has just been the start.  There’s nothing to suggest that winning the award has had any negative impact to his innovation.

Jean-Louis Roubira

Spiel des Jahres 2010: Dixit

Roubira has 4 ranked games on BGG with at least 100 ratings, but only one (Fabula) is not descended from Dixit.  Dixit was his first published design, and took two years until it achieved wide release in Germany and won the award.  As a result, there’s not enough information to make or refute any claims relative to Roubira.

Susan McKinley Ross

Spiel des Jahres 2011: Qwirkle

Ross has 2 ranked games on BGG with at least 100 ratings, the other one being Qwirkle Cubes – a follow-up to Qwirkle that was released before Qwirkle made it to Germany.  Again, there’s not sufficient data to make a case in either direction.

=====

So, having reached the present day, let’s look at the data.

Five designers have insufficient data to make any definitive claims about.  That leaves nine designers to consider.

Claim #1: The Spiel des Jahres has a peculiar knack for honoring great designers for some of their worst games.

The only designer you could reasonably make this claim for is Seyfarth, for whom Manhattan is a below average game according to BGG and Thurn & Taxis is precisely in the middle.  For Teuber, Kramer, Moon, Wrede, and Vaccarino, the Spiel des Jahres was awarded to their best design, as designated by BGG.  For Henn, Schacht, and Knizia, the award was for a lower rated game from their oeuvre, but still firmly in the top half of their designs.

One out of nine does not a knack make.

Claim #2: It appears the award diverts designers’ attention from their more innovative and enduring creations.

Once again, there is one designer for whom the data fits in with Tom’s claim.  Here, it’s Knizia.  Looking at his history, you can reasonably argue that his post-Spiel des Jahres output does not measure up to his pre-Spiel des Jahres output.  Of course, much of this may have to do with how much he accomplished prior to winning the award – but regardless of the cause, the data is clear.

The other data here – while it fails to point to designer’s attention being diverted – is less definitive.  For Wrede and Vaccarino, the fact that their first design won the award means that the fact that their “best” non-SdJ designs came later really doesn’t mean much.  Seyfarth is close enough to the same camp to also drop from the discussion.

That leaves six designers.  For four of them, their game with the highest average rating on BGG (besides their winner) came after they won the award.  For two – Knizia and Schacht – their game came earlier.  For most designers, the years following their win not only saw an increase in the number of designs they had published, but also more of their highest rated games on BGG.

So, while Tom was right to call out Kramer as a designer who didn’t match his claims, neither do Teuber, Moon, Wrede, Henn, Schacht, or Vaccarino.  And neither Seyfarth nor Knizia fits into both claims.  And it’s nearly impossible to apply the first claim to Hodel, Payne, Liesching, Roubira, or Ross.  You could claim that winning the award has diverted them from game design as a whole, I suppose, but looking at the games they designed none of them won for a game in the sweet spot for BGG, so unless you posit that had they not won they would have started moving in that direction with their designs, I don’t think that holds either.

All of which leads me to the conclusion that the real issue at the heart of Tom’s article is that – other than for Kramer – the games which have won have not been games Tom enjoys, and he’s not fond of the proliferation of titles which often result from a Spiel des Jahres win.  But that makes for a far harder central point to write an article about.