Jon Shafer

Hey guys. This ain't the right place for this kind of thread, but that's part of my problem. I just noticed that I'm unable to start any threads in the Idle Banter forum (although I obviously don't have that problem either here or in the new TMA forum) - is that on purpose? Also, I'm noticing some buttons have broken images. Anyone else seeing that? - Jon (Chris or someone else, feel free to move/kill this thread once it's served its purpose. )

Thanks guys. - Jon

Just talking about games I'm afraid. My knowledge and skills are pretty much confined to that discipline. In particular, I was thinking about ways to teach an entire game to players, in contrast to Risk Legacy which introduces new mechanics and explains those as they come into play, but you still have to sit down and learn the basics for everything before you start. - Jon

Possibly... I haven't tried it yet either! However, MP and SP tend to be very different experiences even when the gameplay mechanics are identical. Most people just tend to prefer one over the other. For that reason, I think it's always a bit of a stretch when developers claim that MP is the answer for replayability - it certainly is for some people, but you don't really see most players 'graduating' from SP to MP (or vice versa). If there's not enough meat on the SP side, most SP players will simply stop playing. - Jon

Don't forget Imperialism... I think of it as the official game of TMA (apologies to both Troy and Rise of Nations ). Teaching new players is a topic near and dear to my heart (in fact, it'll be the subject of the next game design article I write, which should be up in a couple days). Your point about the Pokemon show serving as a lead-in for the game is great one. The key in getting anyone interested and invested in anything is hooking them somehow, then not overwhelming and scaring them off. Knowing the basic concepts from the show gave every player a solid base of understanding. When teaching someone a board game I used to be all about explaining everything important up-front, but in the past couple months I've become a convert for the 'just-in-time' teaching model. Some (like the me of the past) might argue that you need to know the whole context of the game in order to make informed decisions, but the reality is that most players just aren't going to be able to keep everything in their head and apply all of that information the first time they play a game. You have to build up to really deep strategy, and to get to that point players have to feel comfortable at every stage along the way. Here's a thought on teaching a board game, building on what Rob Daviau already did with Risk Legacy (which I'll also use as my example): ***** The rules are completely broken up into discrete sections that tell the player to read them when they become relevant (of course, if someone just wants to plow through everything that's fine too). At the top of each section in large font it says "Read This When BlahBlahBlah" so that it's plainly obvious when certain sections should be read. The first section of the rules which players must read before starting a game cover just the very basics: "This is a game about capturing territory, the goal is to get 3 victory points, the easiest way to do that is by capturing another player's capital, when two armies fight you roll dice and whoever is higher wins," etc. This section could also explain the basic strategies without going into any details, e.g. "at the beginning of every new turn each player receives new armies to place," and "it's a good strategy to capture and hold an entire continent." Then in a very obvious section titled "READ WHEN A PLAYER STARTS A NEW TURN" in big, bold letters it explains that players receive new armies based on how many territories they control, and provides the formula for it. In the section titled "READ WHEN A PLAYER CAPTURES AN ENTIRE CONTINENT" it actually explains the bonus armies you get for doing so. ***** This concept is similar to what Rob did with Risk Legacy, but he actually made the game itself grow more complex the longer it's played. I think the concept of rolling things out slowly could be taken even further and applied to the entire teaching process. The big risk (no pun intended, really!) with this approach is that players forget to read the sections when they become relevant. I think that's a much better option than throwing new players into the deep end hoping they read and understood all of the rules before starting. I'm not in the board game space at all, so if anyone tries this out and makes it work, lemme know! - Jon

If I were to point out any flaws in UoC, this would indeed be one of them. The fact that every time you play a map the starting situation is completely identical does really limit replayability for each scenario to 2-3 times, as that's about how long it takes to attain complete mastery, and once that happens there's really nothing new to see. Some kind of randomization might help here, but hey, it's not a full-price game so I'm not expecting a game like Civ. It's also kinda hard to add too much variance in a game based on an extremely well-known bit of history. The only other issue I think one could bring up would be the lack of need to adapt to new rules as you progress through the game. As you gain experience with the system you'll come up with new strategies, but the mechanics themselves change very little from the first couple missions. Again, the historical context makes this a challenge, but it is an issue nonetheless. Turns are limited and there is a certain number you must finish each scenario within, but for the most part you're racing to achieve a 'better' victory than you would get if you were a few turns slower. So there is the pressure of time, but it won't end your game unless you're really slow in meeting your objectives. That having been said, there is definitely the feeling that time is of the essence and that you're on the clock. For players who hate that, UoC may not be the game for you. - Jon

Really enjoyed being on the panel, thanks to my fellow panelists and everyone who came out to be a part of it. I was pretty surprised by how few people who showed up had listened to the podcast before. I suppose that just goes to show how big of an event PAX is. - Jon P.S. If you haven't already bought Imperialism, do so!

Ha, the pleasure is all mine sir! I vividly remember the interview we did a few years ago, and really enjoyed it. You do a great job and I miss your writing. Eagerly awaiting new episodes of the podcast. - Jon

Well done sir... well done. - Jon

Howdy everyone. I've arrived with the recent annexation of Three Moves Ahead, and am reporting for duty! - Jon

And I'm one of those who disagree with this. I feel like there are more obscure and punishing rules in CK than in EU where the game is more content to just kind of flow around you. At the very least there's no risk of clicking a single button and accidentally losing half of your empire. Because of the lack of gotchas of this type, I think EU3 is still the best intro to the Paradox lineup. All that having been said, CK2 is my favorite game that they've put out. - Jon