My Top 7 Favorite Multi-Player Solitaire Games
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 4 ก.ค. 2024
- Jamey discusses multi-player solitaire & low-interaction games, including Dominion, Tiny Towns, Quacks of Quedlinberg, On Tour, Welcome To, and Orleans. Added later: Rolling Realms, The Guild of Merchant Explorers
Gil Hova article: www.gdcvault.com/play/1025687...
Gil Hova talk: gil.hova.net/2016/09/05/a-def...
Become a champion of this channel: stonemaier-games.myshopify.co... - บันเทิง
Thanks for the video! I appreciate your efforts to remove the negative connotation that low interaction games get. All the games you mentioned are loads of fun and simply a different style of game that different players may or may not prefer.
I believe Railroad Ink is another 100% multiplayer solitaire game that is always a joy to play.
I would not clarify "multiplayer solitaire" as "low interaction" necessarily, but as "indirect interaction." Really both of those types of interaction are often saddled with the term "multiplayer solitaire" (as a pejorative) by players who prefer direct or obvious interaction.
Consider Puerto Rico, or any role selection game for that matter. Sure, you cannot burn down another player's corn field, but that game is far from solitaire... Every role choice you make literally gives your opponents the opportunity to act!
My card game, Eminent Domain, was heavily influenced by Puerto Rico. It has been referred to as "multiplayer solitaire." In the first expansion I introduced cards called Peace Treaties, which gave their owners points when dissenting the Warfare role. As a result,once some of those enter play, players must think twice before calling Warfare, lest they give too many points away and lose the game. To me, this is a perfect example of indirect interaction. I've had players refuse to change their play when Peace Treaties came out, preferring instead to complain that those cards are broken. Oddly, some of those players are the same ones who refer to EmDo as multiplayer solitaire :)
TL;DR: I direct interaction is not given enough credit as interaction, and Jamey is totally right that "multiplayer solitaire" is not inherently bad :)
I always had a vague sense that in most multiplayer games I preferred lower player interaction for many of the same reasons Jamey touched on but reading Richard Garfield's textbook Characteristics of Games (shameless plug!) was really eye-opening in the way he and his co-authors formalized the issue. Interaction, as they define it, is the ability of a player to influence another player's progress which inevitably introduces politics, whether or not the designer intended it to be there. Some people love politics in games which is fine but it raises a lot of issues for many players. To illustrate this, they use a couple of "toy game" examples. First imagine a game called the chip taking game in which each player starts with a stack of 10 chips. Players go around the table taking turns and on a player's turn she simply targets an opponent and removes a chip from that player's stack. When a player has no more chips left they are eliminated so the last player with any chips wins. This game is the very essence of a political game. Now imagine this variant: when a player targets an opponent, instead of simply removing 1 chip, she and the opponent play a game of chess. If she loses she still removes 1 chip from her opponent's stack but if she wins she removes 2 chips. In one sense, all the skills which are relevant to chess are relevant to this game and yet Garry Kasparov would almost certainly lose this game because other players would conspire to eliminate him. Of course there are many other issues with politics but the idea that politics, and therefore interaction, has the potential not only to reduce the advantages of (not-political) skill but actually turn it into a deficit, really stuck with me.
A lot of mine overlap with what you had on the list. I've played and enjoyed all of the ones you mentioned.
My top 3 are:
Orleans
Castles of Burgundy - there's limited interaction in the sense that my opponents may take something that I want, but they will never impact my board
Santa Maria
I loved this video! Thank you for putting that article and talk from Gil Hova. I have watched some of his game design videos prior to your channel.
Anyway, I enjoy Gauntlet of Fools by Donald X. Vaccarino which is a dungeon delving game with simultaneous play. I believe Rolling America from Gamewright to be 100% multiplayer (solitaire) game. Lastly, Progress Evolution of Technology is a civilization game with low interaction from alight scarcity in resources (i.e. cards). Once again, love this channel and thanks for the invitation to talk about this topic.
Favorite Multiplayer Solitaire Game: Feast for Odin
I generally don't like games that focus on a single race. "First person to cross the finish line wins, game end triggers immediately." Because those games tend to feel very zero sum to me. At least when I lose in a game with points I feel like I've accomplished something.
Though I don't like race games I do like games with small races in them. Like the milestones in foodchain magnate or in Welcome to... where you're racing to complete achievements before others to get the maximum points. I like them because they retain the tension of a race while avoiding the empty feeling you get in the aftermath of losing. "Ok I didn't get those points but I can redirect and grab points somewhere else." It's more musical chairs than nascar.
Honestly some of my favorite parts of games are the opening stages of scythe of steadily constructing my engine, a complete absence of direct contact with the other player gives it an air of... desolation, in a way a post war country should feel! It’s fascinating thinking about say, figuring myself to be in the shoes of my respective faction leader staring through a pair of binoculars from acres away watching the ongoings of an opposing group just curiously observing them in silent fascination.
And though the phase activation is a player interaction concept that is a VITAL factor of the game, the solitaire functionality of Roll for the Galaxy is really satisfying as you watch other players begin to piece together their engine and begin crafting a specifically inclined empire that maybe is specced strongly for trading or maybe one that’s a strong information broker in the form of scouting for higher or doubled payouts. Some of the combos can be really cool though with how a person can shuffle around their projects in construction or yield major bonuses from finishing developments/settlements and immediately reclaim workers.
I mostly play with my fiancée and we love low interaction games! We used to play A LOT of Terraforming Mars because of the great engine building it is, but we gradually lost our love towards it because the interaction can be so mean sometimes, when you burn your opponent's plants or decrease their production, for instance.
Then we found Underwater Cities and I cannot stress out how much the game solve all our problems! There is still some interaction as we pick our Worker Placement spots, but each one pick 3 out of 12 per turn in a 2-player game, so no big deal. Besides, having fewer choices make the puzzle more interesting :)
Some other games we love that we believe have low player interaction are Wingspan, Newton, Great Western Trail, Vinhos and Lisboa.
Similar to On Tour, Nmbr 9 is a game that has zero player interaction during the game. Players individually build an abstract puzzle based on the order of the pieces determined from a deck of cards. It plays exactly the same at any player count including solo. It's my favorite filler game as it plays in less than 10 minutes and can be taught in about a minute.
Thanks, Jamey. Not only are these great examples, but it helps with one of my first games I am working on. (How much player interaction it needs). I enjoy all types of games, but I discovered that I like these, as well as some solo games. I think all game types/mechanisms can be fun, just depends on the game(although I am still searching for a “Party Game” I enjoy 🙂)
Newton is my favorite game of this type. The only player interaction is a few bonus tokens on the various tracks. Not enough to throw the game off in the end. It is one of the reasons it plays solo so well :)
Thank you for the video. I think it's very important for game designers to know multiple points of view. There are some players who enjoy building something on their own without others disturbing their plans.
When it comes to me, I like both low and high player interaction games because they serve different purposes. When I play with my dad who isn't that experienced in board games, I prefer games without direct attacking/combat because it feels less "family" - and I want family and calm experience when I play with my dad. However, I think the exception are games purely designed for 1v1 contest, like Neuroshima Hex or Keyforge. These games ARE about conflict, therefore it doesn't feel bad for you or for the opponent that you hit 'em or harm in some other way.
On the other hand, when I play with my regular gaming group, I lean towards high interaction games, mainly area control/dudes on the map games. I just love the whole aspect of negotiations, talking(including trash talking), commenting other player's moves, there are just so many emotions connected to it. I can play eurogames too, but they have that weird silence element above the table. When playing with 3+ players, I want to have some metagame elements, which I think are favored in high interaction games.
Jamey, have you played Orleans with the Trade & Intrigue expansion? It is awesome. I play only with the Trade part.
Last week at my game night we had a multiplayer solitaire night. We played Second Chance, Welcome To and Railroad Ink. It was great!
have you tried Dice Hospital from Alley Cat Games? It's my favourite of this type of game (especially with the Deluxe Add-ons and the new expansion coming to Kickstarter next month) It is easy to teach anyone, yet still fun for experienced gamers to play. The only interaction part is the choice of dice-patients and improvements at the start of each round, after that it is simultaneous play (allowing experienced players to do their thing and then be available to help people with questions). It's the game i have played most since Essen last year because it is so easy to get to the table, fun, and relatively quick.
Thanks for the recommendation! I haven't played it yet.
Great video. I liked Gil's thing too. Thanks for sharing. It was almost cathartic. :P
This video and Gil's post led to a discussion on FB, following the rant posted below. Note, these are just my outspoken thoughts. I'm not preaching. I'm just glad it's being talked about.
Happy gaming,
Jonny
Here's what I think. The term [player interaction] should not have any good/bad qualitative stuff attached to it. Leave that job for the adjectives and such. Aggressive player interaction, competitive player interaction, soft player interaction, social player interaction, and so on. Or other things like "F*ckery", Take That", "Gotchya", "mind reading", "influence", "market dynamics", or what-have-you.
Quick note, I am not one to over-define things when there are diminishing returns for doing so. Being pedantic is often a sign of some pathological "Someone is wrong on the internet" tick. I saw a worthless thread last month where a bunch of people were acting like authorities trying to define the term "gateway game". It HAS to be under 45 minutes; it HAS to be family friendly; it HAS to blah, blah, blah. No it effing doesn't. For each statement they posted I could immediately think of a counterfactual. Heroscape is a 2+ hour game that is a perfect gateway to miniature war games. So much for your 45 minutes limit. Caylus/Stone Age/Lords of Waterdeep are many peoples' first introduction to worker-placement games. So much for your tiny kids and 99-year-old granny. Put simply, a gateway game is a gateway game. Nuff said.
Now back to the point I want to make. Player interaction is on a spectrum. Like luck. The difference between Input Randomness and Output Randomness can be everything. I personally LOVE Input Randomness. In fact, I avoid games without it: if a game is zero-luck or is all Output Randomness I can safely assume it won't be my jam.
So like luck, player interaction needs to be defined more honestly when we talk/review/rate/comment on games. This definition can be personal. Absolutely. One person's cutthroat auction game can be another persons dry economic exercise. Sure. But say why you feel that way, and what drove you to the conclusion. Quit saying stuff like "It ain't for the carebear players" or "It's Multiplayer Solitaire". Those come across as derogatory terms, putting games and the people who play them down. Of course to be fair, "Take That" in certain circles is taboo as well.
Whenever you fall, give a few more details about your general preferences and relation to the particular game in question. Plus, you might be like a lot of people: someone who has shifting preferences depending on mood and context: Take it Easy is great for the bingo-loving family gathering; Waterdeep is great for converting RPGers into Euro-gamers; and the Splendor APP is good for loosening up your stool on your bathroom break. Sometimes you wanna rock out with grindcore metal, and others you want some vapor-wave to slow-groove you to sleep.
For me personally, I like indirect player interaction. Lots of it, if possible. Think of Coloma/Hangtown with the Boom/Bust mechanics which are like Race for the Galaxy turned on it's ass-you want to NOT do what other players are doing. By reading the game-state/players you can really dig into those games-even to the point where that IS the game. The rest in comparison is just interior mechanics, the gears, cool art, quality components, and such-stuff that makes a complete product.
Ask yourself simple questions. Is knee-capping someone really an "interaction" in it's highest form? A lot of people think so, for better or worse. Where is it on a spectrum between: "I kill all your stuff at once and knock you out of the game-or-outright solitaire (where at best players just compare scores afterwards)"? Pwning someone wholesale with a cheap-shot can be like, "I play this card on you. You're effectively out of the game. Have fun. And btw, don't retaliate against ME; I'm not in first place anymore. Attack that guy instead." Is that even interaction? Or as a friend just put it, Licensed Aggression? Maybe. But ask it of yourself before you slam games on BGG.
As you might guess, I'd argue that knee-capping someone is too one-sided to be a "good" interaction point. If someone breaks into your car and steals your stereo while you were sleeping is that interactive? Or did that just happen to you? Was it no better than Output Randomness? Bad luck? The thief is the RNG. Your car got picked. Now you just have to live with the outcome.
In contrast, think of a good conversion, a hard negotiation, a slow dace with a partner, or a boxing match. Those have interactions that are meaningful and ongoing, with feedback loops and all that beautiful complexity. This even includes "dudes on a map" games where I fight you, you fight me, and then the guy turtled up in the corner pops up when we are both compromised and digs in-trying to steal the win. Or a bidding war game, all done through a medium-no one blows up your bank; instead they just run your money dry.
Tortoise and Hare (Regression to the Mean/Sandbagging), Tragedy of the Commons, Freeloaders/Piggybacking, Speculation: these are real-world based interactions we can pull from. Many games already do. But sadly, some of these are dubbed "JASE" (Just Another Soulless Euro). That kind of name-calling should stop. Step outside yourself for a moment and think about why other people might cherish their experiences with these games with their friends and families.
And please, don't rag on designers/publishers if they consciously decided to make games that don't align with your player interaction preferences. Maybe those games are not meant for you. Luckily, there are thousands of others for you to pursue.
My favorite kind of player interaction which you didnt mention, are positive player interactions. For instance in scythe when my neighbors take an action that i benefit from. Or in gaia project, when people build/upgrade near you and you can leech some power. Id be very interested to see a game that was designed to have more of that and even to focus on it. Make it the one of the core mechanisms.
There is also the "joining" mechanism in Keyper, where you can invite other players to go to the same space you go to, which boosts both your rewards.
The best example of positive player interaction that I've seen is Concordia. You're building trading posts in different cities on a map. The map is broken up into different regions. Each trading post supplies a different type of good (wheat, brick, cloth, etc). When the active player activates a region they trigger all their own trade posts in that region to produce goods (plus they get a bonus resource, the most expensive in the region) but they also trigger everyone else's trading posts in that region too. Which means even on your turn I might be getting resources. It encourages players to build close to one another so they can coast off each other's actions. It's great.
I love positive player interactions (though the would fall into the category of player interaction)! :) I have a video about my favorites: th-cam.com/video/TLl2EXbOnjw/w-d-xo.html
I love this idea of multiplayer solitaire games. To be able to have fun with your own experience and just be able to see other players doing there own thing and having fun. There is something so pure in that. I have seen in Blood Rage, one player that i was playing with got really pissed at the confrontation that cost them the game. This is something I really like to avoid in games where everyone just has fun and enjoy the game. I love both types of games with lots or little player interaction, but I can't think of a true multiplayer solitaire game. I genuinely have a civ building concept for this and I am really hoping it becomes something.
I have Kokoro Avenue of the Kodama which is a Flip and Write game that has zero player interaction. My 10 Yr old daughter LOVES this game, and I find it "ok" but I feel the result is an actual order of intelligence since we were all given the same hand. My wife and I don't like straight up take that mechanisms, or in your face attacking each other; so games like Viticulture or Caverna or Clans of Caledonia that have mild player interaction are right up our alley.
Thanks for this video! Wingspan has some of these elements, and I freaking love it. I think i have logged 24 plays since getting my copy earlier this year. I really like being able to tell people that they can't do anything to hurt my game and I can't hurt them.
An idea I had for a future video, show us your collection! And tell us why certain games are in there and why you kept them.
Thanks Ben! I'll make a note about a "top 10 games in my collection" video at some point. Occasionally I post shelfies on instagram @jameystegmaier
In On Tour, your choice of theme for your board might limit what someone else can pick... if you take Rock I might not be able to. Lol kidding aside it is a great choice and a true multiplayer solitaire game, and a great example of how that’s not inherently negative. Thanks for the video and everything else you contribute to gaming - it’s appreciated!
I generally prefer low interaction games and avoid (like the plague) direct conflict. I do enjoy all the games you listed (of the ones I've played), but prefer a step or two heavier (like Orleans and up). My top 3 "Multi-Player Solitaire" Games:
3. Orleans
2. Caverna: The Cave Farmers
1. Roll for the Galaxy
After scanning my top 100 list, I realized how many of my games have a decent amount of "passive" player interaction - Energy Empire, Puerto Rico, Great Western Trail, Roll Player, Rajas of the Ganges, and many more. I guess I'm a sucker for "how can I use what WE have to optimize MY play". ;)
Wow! I have a game that that is leaning this direction and I've been conflicted about whether to bring more of this aspect out, or to design for more interaction... just what I needed to hear.
The most helpful part of this video was taking the shame out of multi-player solitude, which is the essence of my conflict. I've been concerned that the market is not there for this type of design. Thanks for the perspective.
@@DouglasHorch We're out here!
@@StevenStJohn-kj9eb Ha! Awesome, hit me up and I'll send you a prototype of the game I'm working on... If and when I can finish writing the rules.
I'm really with you on this. I love all interaction levels, but low-interactions games do get a bad rep.
I just picked up Honga and I feel like it fits nicely in the this category.
While I tend to prefer more player interaction, I discovered through Wingspan that my wife strongly prefers low interaction, and that high interaction is what was stopping her from liking a lot of games.Your comments in the video are almost her exact quote “I just want to control what I’m doing without anyone else messing me up, and see if I can win.”
Low interaction games might get a bad rap because if a game allows players to influence the board state for the others more, then each play will be more competitive and dynamic. Replayability would increase. That doesn't mean games with a lower amount of interaction points are bad, but the variety would need to be baked into the design somehow through randomness mechanisms like dice or card draw.
I agree. Multi-player solitaire is just another playing style, a preference. It's to me the same as people saying that light, quick games are by default inferior. I don't think that's true. Different people like different things, and that's what's so good about boardgames - there is so much choice that it should be possible to find something for everyone. :)
I don't personally like true multiplayer solitaire games or with very limited multiplayer interaction, but I love many games with fairly low multiplayer interaction, like Dominion, Splendor, Century: Spice Road, or Suburbia. Whether it's a race to achieve certain goals, or limited or unique resources, I need just that much to scratch the itch that I'm playing a game with other people at the same time for a reason. Otherwise, I don't feel like I need to sit down at a table with them and could be perfectly happy playing "high score" games on an app or just sharing scores and setting a leaderboard. I'm not saying it's bad if you enjoy that kind of experience, but I guess for me to want to actually sit down at a table with someone else, I need there to be a little more glue in the game mechanics binding us together beyond the "everybody do your best with the same thing" experience that a lot of multiplayer solitaire or x-and-write style games offer.
I just thought of a possible test for "multiplayer soitairiness": if the solo version of the game is virtually unchanged from the multiplayer version. I've never played On Tour but in watching a video review I suspect you could play it for fun on your own exactly as you would a multiplayer game, save the thrill of comparing scores at the end. In contrast, when I solo Terraforming Mars or Scythe or Viticulture or Ex Libris - good as those solo versions are - I know I'm playing a variant.
Using that test, the game I play with maximum multiplayer solitairiness is Castles of Burgundy: The Dice Game. It's a roll and write where there are only 2 differences to the multiplayer version, and they are both pretty minor variations. But it is a fun game.
I like that, Steven! I would agree if the solo version doesn't use an Automa system (though there might be instances where that definition still applies).
Can you please time stamp the 7 games?
Dimension is a great example, it makes not difference what anyone else does, it's just how well you have achieved the criteria as compared to them.
Thanks for the video
I thought about mentioning that one, but I thought Dimension was a race against other players (so your speed impacts how fast other players try to finish). I could be remembering that wrong, though. Either way, it is a very low-interaction game that I really enjoy.
@@jameystegmaier You are all working against a timer rather than first to finish. A lovely tactile experience too
Imperial Settlers. Yes there is limited ability to attack the other player, and that can be impactful at the right time, but 95% of the time you are just building your tableau.
Quacks is definitely a fantastic game! Have you tried the expansion, The Herb Witches?
I don't think it's available in the US yet, but I'm eager to try it!
I depends, really. I like some thematic games first and foremost ( Star Wars: Rebellion, Middle-Earth Quest ), but I also enjoy games with medium to low interaction, such as Castles of Burgundy or Grand Austria Hotel.
There is also "Progress: Evolution of Technology", which is basically "Civilization Tech Tree: the Card Game". Other than someone getting a card you wanted, there is no interaction.
I usually play games with my wife 2-player and prefer games with at least medium interaction. Actually the least interactive game we play togethet is Wingspan. I agree that for larger groups multiplayer solitaires are save choices.
On the other hand we don't like games with strong destractive aspects. For some context: Terraforming Mars or Though the Ages are acceptable, but Game od Thrones LCG is not.
Two games with fantastic strong interaction, yet without aggression, are Troyes and Glass Road. I would like to see more games with original mechanics for interactions which don't involve destruction.
Of course the young kids love multiplayer solitaire games. In fact whatever the category of game, I would say multiplayer solitaire has to be the number one requirement for the really young kids!
This is a pretty confusing topic because people have such different thresholds for calling a game "multiplayer solitaire". I've heard Scythe called that, which is a little nuts. I think that comes from the oft-repeated summary that in Scythe the threat of combat is often more important than actual combat, but even if there was no combat in Scythe, there's still a shared map creating blocking, denial of resources, and so forth. (I've heard Terraforming Mars called multiplayer solitaire - no combat, a few "take that" cards" - but again, a shared map!) Likewise I've heard worker placement games called multiplayer solitaire when a WP game almost always has blocking or at the very least some sort of penalty for sharing a space - some reason to race to a space you want. Then there are games like Century Spice Road or Splendor, where you are mostly in your own head - until someone snaps up the contract you wanted or wins a noble you were focusing your efforts on.
In the long run "multiplayer solitaire" isn't really a category of games (IMO) as much as it is an ambiguous complaint that the game is lacking something you want. As you point out, there are many kinds of interaction. However, gamers will use the term "multiplayer solitaire" not if a game lacks all or even most of the types of interaction, but if it lacks the one type they are thinking about at that moment. (And not even lack - just not have quite enough of, like Scythe for combat or Terraforming Mars for take-that cards.)
But enough philosophy. Bottom line - I'm like you. If I hear a gamer complain some game is "multiplayer solitaire" I have 2 reactions. One, it probably isn't multiplayer solitaire. Two, I might just like this game.
Tiny Towns has made a big impact, everybody loves it it seems.
Love me some low interaction games too. If the game doesn't offer interaction I make my own by "clever" quips and jokes.
I love it. I hope you don't mind that I steal that. ;p
I think the people who talk negatively about multiplayer solitaire do so because they need for a game to scratch that hypercompetitive itch. I personally enjoy mild or indirect interaction, such as Potion Explosion or Gizmos. In both games, your choices change the options available to players on their turn, but it never really feels mean or frustrating.
I don't think you can really put Dominion into this category. You usually have attack cards that make the interactions high. You also have to react to what other people have purchased and adjust what you do and when you do it accordingly. I think that as a general rule in game design, you should push design to more interaction with other players. I think the question becomes is my game interactive enough or is it too much?
I would make the argument that a true multi-player solitaire games can run the danger of becoming a puzzle. Once you become familiar with the puzzle, it becomes easy to pick out the optimal move each time. Games always seem to me that there is some random element that you are mitigating for, controlling or reacting to and people are one of the most random elements in games. It's a missed opportunity when you don't design for the people factor in a game.
Being relatively new to the hobby I only recently heard the term but gathered quickly that it was used in a derogatory manner. I wasn't sure why since most the games called multiplayer solitaire were games high on the bgg list and games I enjoy. I don't see why you can't like both kind of games. The mental test that both kind of games give you are enjoyable in their own way.
I definitely enjoy a lot of low interaction games. Kingdomino, Azul, and Sagrada come immediately to mind.
I'm not sure how Azul is low interaction. The tiles you take directly effect what tiles are available to other people. Other than deciding where to put the tiles on your board, and the end of round scoring, there is constant interaction in that game.
The more my girlfriend and I play Azul, the more aggressive we get! Early on we played with eyes only on our own boards but the more familiar we got we started to "attack" with our choices. My last 2 games were lost because I played to hurt other players too much and it either backfired or a 3rd player won. Lesson learnt!
I believe those are very high interaction games especially with how powerful taking first player can be! And hate drafting is a big component of the game even if it's not your preferable way to play.
[(ROLL Player) FOR THE (GALAXY Trucker)]... none of these three games are multiplayer solitaire in the way roll-and-writes and indirect-player-interaction euros are; however, good portions of their gameplay feel that way do to the simultaneous head-down nature of them. I like them very much.
I really like that you emphasized that what a lot of people call multiplayer solitaire games are actually low interaction games, though unless I don't have any way of sensing how well another player is doing in a game with luck elements, my decisions are still being impacted by them, so even a game where the only 'point of interaction' is comparing scores at the end, such as On Tour, can still fail to be multiplayer solitaire for me - I might take bigger risks if I think I'm behind or play safer if I've got a comfortable lead than I would if I'm strictly trying to just optimize my score when playing these games solo. And, well, if I'm playing a game differently because there's another player at the table, can it really be said to be multiplayer solitaire?
When it comes to low vs high interaction games, I tend to being neutral towards it myself, it largely depending on my mood, but I rarely get to play high interaction games where the interaction is aggressive, due to my husband's gaming preferences. If the high interaction is less aggressive, as in Brass with the ability to use other player's resources which in turn gives them or even when it's something like blocking availability, he tends to be absolutely ok with that, but when it's something like combat he can find that stressful (Especially where it's 'outguessing the other player' such as a Prisoner Dilemma or a silent auction - Scythe is basically his limit when it comes to aggressive interaction in games, and only because combat is rare in Scythe)
Going to go read Gil's articles and watch his video on this now, cheers for the links. (reread? I feel like I've seen stuff Gil has to say about this before, but that might have been a ludology episode on the subject)
Just wanted to say...i flipping LOVE the animals of farthing wood!
I find it odd that low interaction is seen by a vocal group to be a criticism of a game while so many games are coming out with a solo variant, particularly on kickstarter. It seems people want to play solo when they can't get a group together but will moan about low interaction when playing with friends!
While I tend to prefer more player interaction, I discovered through Wingspan that my wife strongly prefers low interaction, and that high interaction is what was stopping her from liking a lot of games.Your comments in the video are almost her exact quote “I just want to control what I’m doing without anyone else messing me up, and see if I can win.”