by Madeline B
Why am I obsessed with the Steam version of
Star Realms? Not only because it's a great game (
though it is) or because I have a lot of downtime in this particular era (though I do). Not just because I have enjoyed playing the leagues on BGG and the "legends" tour at virtual Origins and GenCon events; I think if you're reading this blog, you can probably understand the appeal of playing a fast-paced game against other opponents around the world without the hand-eye coordination required to shuffle in your deckbuilder. No, I like it so much I even play game after game against the hard AI, who--although it sometimes beats me--is much less good overall than a skillful human opponent.
Maybe it's because I'm deliberately looking for something low-engagement, that I can do to pass the time while plotting my next fanfiction or resting up from a migraine that doesn't require the mental energy of being creative or deeply strategic. I can often beat up on the AI, gaining powerful cards and combos that ally well together. And then...I win! That's it! It's a quick game, and definitely an engine-builder in the sense where turns accelerate and become more powerful as you (again, contrast Dominion where accumulating powerful points cards, while the way to win, dilutes your deck). But Star Realms seems to have the "leave you wanting more" feel down--"that game was so short, I didn't even get to exploit all my awesome Blob synchronicity! Better rematch..."
*
The rest of this post isn't super related, it's just other thoughts I've had swirling around and been too lazy to write up for a while. A few months ago Humble Bundle had a sale of many digital board games, among them
Small World. A lot of people like Small World because it provides a similar "invade each other's space and kill their dudes" feel as the old-school Risk, but unlike Risk, there's no chance of a stalemate; you know the game is going to always have ten rounds, and that's it! From a design perspective, I agree that this is generally an improvement.
However, I'm not the biggest fan of the way Small World goes about implementing its turns. You get ten. On your turn, you can move your troops from a previous turn, or introduce a new species onto the board (in the first move, you have to do that). You can also "go into decline." This means your species is fading from history, but you can come in with a new position next time. Because you can usually have two species on the board (one in decline but still scoring points, another active and conquering regions), it's usually a good idea to go into decline at least once early on, and often two or three times.
Except, from a player engagement standpoint--that's it? I only get ten fleeting turns, and I have to spend two or three of them doing
nothing? I recognize that the scoring incentives of the game make this lucrative, but from a design perspective it feels underwhelming. In the same way that "lose a turn" mechanics are seen as old-fashioned or clunky by many, I can't help thinking that "spend one of your carefully-rationed turns doing nothing and get ready for next round" isn't the best.
*
Patchwork is another game included in that bundle, and it features a "time track," which in some ways is trying to parcel out time in a similar manner. To obtain pieces, you need two resources, buttons and time (just like in real quilting). If you take a piece that "costs" less time, you advance less far on the time track, and can potentially take another move before your opponent gets to go.
But as adorable as the theme is, I don't really feel like I'm "spending" time in either the good or the scary sense. Sometimes I get to take two turns in a row, and every once in a while I can orchestrate that deliberately so that I get two pieces that I both want. Okay, so what? Lots of games have inconsistent turn order. Sometimes, because of not having enough buttons, I have to (or choose to) skip ahead on the time track to accumulate more. What does that thematically represent, other than "trading in one type of abstract resource for another"?
Splendor in contrast, is a more "traditional" game in the sense of "everyone takes a turn in the same order until someone meets the win condition, then make sure everyone gets equal numbers of turns." But you're not counting turns, and I don't feel the anvil of
zeitnot hanging over me.* Pretty dry game; get gems, buy cards, use cards for discounts on other cards. Some people favor an engine-builder strategy where you rush to go for nobles; others (like me when I was starting out) concentrate on accumulating mid-range points cards without a long-term aim.
But playing open-handedly online gives me more time to see the board from the other players' point of view. "She went first, and she took a blue and a black. If she gets another black next turn, she'll be able to afford that one-blue, two-black card, before I get a chance at it. So even though it's the 'cheapest' card available, I shouldn't expect to be able to purchase it for three gems. Maybe I should aim for the two-red, two-green instead..." Looking ahead, even a card that costs more gems might be equally expensive in terms of "number of turns needed to acquire those gems." And every turn I spend buying a card--preferably using cards I've already bought before--is a turn I'm
not being held back by acquiring gems! Time is a resource here, too, and by manipulating it to my advantage, I feel like I've acquired a deeper understanding of the game.
*The Anvil of Zeitnot is the name of my new band.
