10 Games I Love with Victory Points
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 30 มิ.ย. 2024
- Jamey shares his thoughts on games that benefit from victory points, using examples from Tzolk'in, Fantasy Realms, The Quacks of Quedlinberg, Clank, Downforce, Isle of Skye, On Tour, A Feast for Odin, Ganz Schon Clever, and The Castles of Mad King Ludwig.
Scott Westerfield's SHUX talk: • Scott Westerfeld: Vict...
Gil Hova's response: gil.hova.net/2019/05/09/no-vi...
Become a champion of this channel: stonemaier-games.myshopify.co... - บันเทิง
For games that end on a VP trigger (reach X points to win or begin final round), it helps to state WHAT the VP represent, and WHY that arbitrary number means something. In Viticulture, the rules state the VP represent reputation as a vineyard owner. When teaching I add in some flavor by saying “at 20 reputation, the vineyard will be added to local guidebooks, guaranteeing success for years to come”. A little story goes a long way. VP are not a problem, but positioned properly they enhance games.
I like that, Brian--I can see how that reduces the abstract nature of victory points.
I haven’t sifted through all the comments, but I have to mention Anachrony. When you view each victory point as another 100 people who you’ve gotten to join up with you Pathway, it all makes so much sense and fits so well!
1) Near and Far with the Amber Mines expansion in co-op mode uses victory points. You add your victory points to try to defeat the boss's score. I've only played it once with my son, but it seemed to work well.
2) I appreciate your commentary on absolutes. This is a lesson I teach my high school students when creating thematic statements. It's important to say "almost never" or "almost always" instead of the absolutes with such a diverse world. Absolutes have a tendency to be dangerous and/ or insulting to some.
I tried to watch his talk because I thought maybe he was going to take a tongue-and-cheek approach. Didn't bother to finish. I see nothing wrong with VP's, and I see nothing wrong with win conditions. As long as it services the game, doesn't interfere with fun, etc, then why is it a problem?
I just had a game night with a new player that straight up said "I hate all cooperative games". Well darn, everyone else in the group likes/loves them. I guess you just have to find your crowd. Not everyone will like everything, taste is subjective, being an elitist about anything is short-sighted, and having an entire panel about why something sucks just doesn't seem like the best approach to constructive discussion.
I don't think victory points make a bad game, but it does kinda sap the thunder when you win a game with a strong theme by having the most VPs. If your game is about war you should win by conquering, if its about trade and commerce it should be who has the most wealth; VPs are fine, but if you're making a game with a strong theme you kinda want the victory condition to match that.
There are several points that the Victory points suck lecture skirts. One is that boardgames are a different medium than novels or movies, so something that works in one may not work in the other. Also, that in certain games, not having VP would make for a terrible experience even if the end is exciting. A great example is the game he uses as an example in his lecture. He mentioned that he stills remember the game 40 years later...but also that he never played the game again. I still remember when I broke an arm, great story...i don't want to do it for fun
Some of my favorite games use victory points, and would not be nearly as good without them. Victory points allow for a lot of interesting decisions.
1st, VPs allow players to have a better understanding of the value of certain actions, especially in complex games or when you’re learning the game. This allows for a central struggle of short-easy gains vs long-difficult gains. This also lets games quantify the value of otherwise abstract actions, but that tell a fun story.
2nd, VPs allow for the long-term vs short-term decisions that add so much depth to many games. Engine building games especially benefit from this- when do I stop building my engine and start focusing on using that engine to help push me toward the win.
3rd, VPs are a great way to bring the right balance of knowing who’s currently in the lead vs exciting surprise wins at the end of the game. Many games need to give players an idea of how everyone is doing in relation to each other, to encourage temporary alliances, etc. But also, many games wouldn’t be fun at all if you knew for certain you were losing halfway through the game and there was little you could do about it. This is the problem with many racing games... they need to be short because it’s obvious who is winning with no room for surprises.
And lastly, some games do really clever things with VPs that make you think in new ways. Some examples: Rajas of the Ganges, Race to the New Found Land, and most of Reiner Knizia’s games.
This got me thinking about how not all VP games are the same type of "plot" progression, and there's several species in how they end. Some boardgames are over after X turns, then everyone tallies up their VP. But there's other games that use VPs as a finish line, where as soon as someone reaches X points it triggers the last turn. And finally there's games with multiple end conditions, for example Race For The Galaxy where the end is triggered by either building 12 cards or exhausting the VP chip pile. Some players will want to slow the pacing down so they can trade more often, while those who don't trade will want to hurry up and build 12 cards... and this itself becomes an interesting climax to the game. I noticed Scythe also does something like this, where placing the last star doesn't necessarily mean winning.
That was an easy topic for me to come up with super fun games with victory points really enhancing the game.
And now, that I read through these comments there are so many more cool examples for great VP games. And also even styles of victory point methods in games that tell a story in and of itself, like when you have multiple things that you build at the same time, but only your lowest one scores (Like in "Between to Castles...")
Stefan Feld also uses clever ways to integrate points into some of his games (Speicherstadt, Trajan), although these are dryer eurogames, I still like sitting there at a game's end and looking what brought me the most victory points.
Also in some games with score sheets or even different kinds of victory points, it is cool to see, which areas of the game were the most rewarding in that particular session not only for me, but also for the oder players.
Oh, by the way, you can see my "Responding Jamey" top list of victory point games here: th-cam.com/video/5V8kZ8y6HeA/w-d-xo.html
:)
I lately discovered Trans Europa through a friend which uses defeat points. It's a different take on railroad games in that it's semi-coop where you must rely on the built tracks of your opponents (linking to them at the right moment) to link your own five secret stations together. The first to link all five gets no defeat points, and the rest receive defeat points equal to the number of links it would have taken to complete the linking of their own five stations. The game ends when 13 defeat points are attained by a player at the end of a round, and the lowest score wins. Quite an elegant little game.
Someone already mentioned it, but Near and Far with the expansion makes for a great coop experience (my preferred way to play near and far. I didn't really enjoy it as a competitive), and victory points is key to winning that. I think it would be hard to balance without victory points, as there is so much to do in the game. You still have to defeat the big boss to trigger the end of the game, but doing that alone without needing to meet the point threshold would just be too easy and not as fun. And yes, one could make the bad guy harder, but what I love in Near and Far playing as coop, is everyone gets to play with their own playstyle and still contribute to the end goal and that you CAN do with a threshold. Removing the threshold and just making it about beating a bad guy, means everyone is instead just doing what it takes to contribute to that end goal, rather than have versatility.
And that style of play is fine, where it is much more singular focused, but it doesn't really ignite my imagination and let all of the players tell different stories. Say in Pandemic, we are all essentially telling one united story vs in Near and Far, we all have our own stories.
I also can't imagine a game of Gugong without victory points. It has a set number of rounds, and you have to get to the top of one of the tracks by the end to even be in the running to win... but victory points gives you reason to get up that track sooner and it gives you reasons to consider how you want to progress through the game, each ways presenting their own thematic story.
Cthulhu Wars, also like gugong, you have to do a certain thing before the end of the game to have a chance at winning (complete all of your spell books), but you need to have the most doom points to actually win. How do you even track all of the things you do in that game without doom points? So doom points kind of track your progress. Having no victory points often makes a game very black and white, very win or lose. It often limits your choices to what is absolutely necessary for the end goal. And if there are multiple ways of winning, they are very concrete ways. Games with victory points allows a variety of things you can do in the game and how you go about doing those things or maybe you ignore some things for others, is up to you. The path to victory is less clear.
How would Eclipse work without victory points? Twilight Imperium?
Civilization: New Dawn works ok without victory points, but as a result, it has always felt a little limited to me. I enjoy the game, I often win it when I play it, but I'm never tempted to say build the most cities or develop my culture in it, I only go for the most efficient actions toward victory. My friend Dan was actually developing a point based version of that game and I'm eager to try that to see if it makes the game more thematic. I think removing victory points often makes a game more about efficiency and less about thematic story. One exception I guess could be Firefly? That one is still about efficiency, but you are building up to a goal and you do have to decide whether you need to get just one more crew or upgrade or a bit more money to insure success at the overall main objective. Battlestar Galactica also has no victory points and is coop.
Victory Points gives us things to focus on in many of these games and lends to variety. Look at Wingspan, how would that even work without victory points? Can victory points be overdone or not be well thought out? Sure, but so can any tool in game design.
I think the game with the most interesting approach to victory points is Arkwright. Your share price (points) gets multiplied by how many shares you have, and you can take actions to buy sell shares for cash at different points in the game. Players have difficult choices on when to tank their share price to buy more cheaply, or sell shared to build a better engine.
I've long prefered win conditions to victory points because, when simulating something real and done well, my natural instincts as to what would lead to the outcome I want hold truer. "Winning RISK means killing everyone else; how can I more effectively kill everyone else?" But sometimes the fungibility of VP's is what allows for an abstracted concept to shine. That's why I want to praise Tokaido. I always introduce the game to people by telling them "It's a cutthroat game about who can have the most pleasant vacation." When you think of it that way, the arbitrary points keep it light and fun. The game shouldn't actually be about deciding whether buying certain objects constitutes a better or "more pleasant" vacation than painting a beautiful vista, or how much more enjoyable visiting hot springs would be if there were monkeys there. It's just about points, and it could be a themeless game and still "work". But as it is, with this strange set of goals, stories emerge. They're not the big overarching stories, but I love when my orphan girl turns down free food because she's become such a foodie.
Wow! What Scott did is audacious. I'd love to see Scott change his writing style after a lecture from Reiner Knizia on how to write stories "properly". But I think Reiner is humble and wise enough not to do that. I view stories and games/sports like lasagna and wine. Just because they both have taste doesn't mean you should confuse them as being the same. To me Scott's lecture makes as much sense as a lecture titled, "Smoothies: All drinks suck, unless they are like food".
"Why Victory Points Suck"....although a well articulated speech that held my attention throughout, did not really address the gaming aspect of 'Not' telling a story but simply enjoying the mental processes and logistics of getting to a non-descript goal, aka getting the most victory points. Not every game needs to tell a 'story' to be a worthwhile and fun engagement. His diagram of a 'typical' VP style game, although telling and in many cases true, did not count in the pure cranial pleasure one may enjoy in participating in the mechanisms of such games. Anywho, I like many VP games for many reasons..."Glen More", (the original), "Scythe", "Shipyard", and " Le Havre" are a sampling of games I enjoy that employ VP as a win condition. Nice to see Biddy up close. :)
I love how Ninja Camp does victory points. You move your ninja meeples around a grid of 7x8 action cards by playing cards to execute different moves (move in a straight line as far as possible, jump 1-2 gaps between cards, etc.) and picking up the card your meeple just left (thus giving yourself a replacement action card while the just-played one goes into your personal discard pile). The victory points are the values on each card, with higher value ones having harder moves to pull off. It means you're constantly reevaluating where to go based on values of cards you can land on, the usefulness of those cards and your opponents' potential to block you. Even if you're out of the game a few turns before others, you might have nabbed enough cards to win. Add in the mini-expansion with rewards for collecting the most of each type of action card (including the negative "trap" cards) and it's even more delicious.
Good stuff Jamey, thanks!
The great debate in the classic D&D community is whether DMs should create plot-driven campaigns (derided as "railroading") or world-driven games (so called "sandbox" games) in which the setting is provided for the players to find their own story. I am very much in the world-building sandbox camp.
I have not seen Westerfield's lecture (a gaming buddy sent me the link a week or so ago, but it was just too boring to sit through an hour), so I probably shouldn't comment, but really it does sound like an author who wants every medium to be like his medium. A game is not a story, it's a game. While stories sometimes emerge from games, and sometimes drive games, it's a false assumption that whatever serves the building of a story is the requirement for a great game. The point of a game is to have fun, and while good stories are fun, so is tension, solving puzzles, achieving short term goals, exploring ideas, and pitting yourself against one or more friends.
I sometimes recall a great gaming experience because of some narrative, but my favorite games are those where there are optimization puzzles, variety, and an intellectual test of wills. And frankly I dislike games that try to make me be an actor in some pre-written plot. I know some gamers love those types of games, but I actually actively dislike them. Give me a setting with many paths, and let me see if my path works the best in the end. Give me Scythe, Terraforming Mars, Concordia, Trajan, Castles of Burgundy, Castles of Mad King Ludwig, Kraftwagen, and The Voyages of Marco Polo, and save the stories for some other time. I don't want to be passive when I'm playing, which is what reading a book or watching a movie is. I want to be thinking, planning, and doing.
Looking at my top ten games (a tentative and hardly comprehensive) all are victory point/currency driven. It really depends on the game I suspect and I don't feel one is necessarily superior (though I tend to like point salad games personally).
I come from an Avalon Hill war game background so I grew up with victory conditions - though a form of points were used in some games to determine the level of victory as in some games the conditions were substantially stacked against one side. I guess I view victory points in the games I enjoy in a similar fashion. Agricola being an example.... the points are just ways to determine who built the "better" farm. The way they are calculated will certainly drive some of your decisions but in the end it's the card play and actual available spaces that will determine your strategy.
I really enjoy the final tallying of points as well (that goes into hidden scoring or end game bonuses which I prefer than complete perfect knowledge of everyone's points). There is something, for me, very thrilling at the end of Concordia to see how well I've played comparatively. It's a game I'd play daily.
Now a thematic game I really dig that has only win conditions is Fury of Dracula... I love the developing story and the various acts of the game. But in the end, even though it has provided some fantastic finishes and memories, there is something similar about every game and as much as I dig it I don't want to play it that often. Whereas something like Castle of Burgundy I'd play a couple of times in an evening... but again that gets down to preference. I don't see how one improves either Castles or Concordia by removing victory points.
And in the end we're talking about an abstraction and a way to quantify performance. I think points should be, and I'd argue are in many games, thematically tied to what you are doing (now as far as the level of theme is concerned I concede that the points in Agricola are not nearly as thematic as the win conditions in Mansion of Madness) and directly reflect what your are attempting to accomplish (understanding that it is still an abstraction).
The thing I like about victory points is the options to victory in a competitive game. I think giving challenges, conditions to reach victory points gives the player a different opportunity to win, and enables a change in strategy. They can also offer more replay ability, in my humble opinion.
Maybe victory points are the best way to determine competitive and non-victory for coop, solo are where other win conditions fit better e.g. played the Harry Potter coop deck builder last night (beating game 4 for the first time 😱) and the win condition is defeating all the villains. Lose condition is losing locations to the villains. End game conditions fit really well with the theme. However most of my games are competitive and I can’t think of one without victory points...other than rhino hero 😜
Not as comprehensive a response to the talk as Gil Hova's, but fun all the same, and sometimes this approach - briefly looking at a bunch of examples that do something well - helps provide more clarity.
I really like how Twilight Struggle and 1989 use their points - They allow for incremental victories to be achieved that accumulate in hitting the magic 20 point threshold of instantly winning, while allowing the result to be assessed at the end of the real world period of time the games re representing if no decisive result occurred prior to that - without that the games would need to keep going until eventually one side wins, however many hours that would take.
Also the way the points work as a tug of war, so every point I score is a point away from you, works really nicely (And is technically what any point based game with two players is doing but the way this game represents it, a single score marker on a single track going from 20 points to one side on one side to 20 points to the other on the other, makes that aspect of points more visceral than in most two player games.
Solo rather than co-op, but something I've seen in Joel Toppen's Navajo Wars is periodic vicotry point checks - Do you have more than this threshold of points? Yes, get a small reward. No, get a small penalty. Not sure if that would count as victory points in this context, however, but it's really easy to conceive of a co-op game with VP that work in much the same way as the stars in Scythe, potentially with the game attempting to reach a different point threshold with a different set of objectives.
While I haven't played it, from what I've read about it I think Galaxy Trucker's got an interesting approach to points, and victory in general. All players who end the game in profit win, but some players win more than others. Which neatly squares the small thematic issue I have with e.g. Agricola - We've all successfully made a farm that's not just feeding our family but allowing it to thrive, in a real world assessment of what we set out to do - make a sustenance farm - surely we all 'won'?
I got your back! Games with points tend to be my favorite games. And just look at the top 100 on boardgamegeek... So many games with victory points! They must be doing something right!
I just played Hansa Teutonica for the first time at my game group a few weeks ago ( late to the party ) and wow, loved the way the victory points could be earned in that game, or unlocking your own bonuses...etc. I love games that give you many ways or strategies to earn them yet still not sure about the final outcome.
Marvel Legendary has individual VP and it totally ruins the co-op feel of the game. Conversely, Alien has the coordinate cards which really brings the co-op feel to life. Mysterium is a co-op that has VP that are more so bragging rights. They technically help with the last phase of the game, but we don't play that phase because it isn't fun. We also make the game way harder by only handing out 1 vision card every hour to each player instead of as many as you want. Makes the guessing and card choosing WAY more important, strategic, confusing, harder, and therefore way more rewarding :) We have to win or lose before the clock runs out. 3 crows or however hard your ghost wants it, and at least 2 more of each "suspect, weapon, and location" than the number of players. At the end, whoever has the most VP gets praised for being so in sync with the ghost and a solid high five. Another thing I added are 5 decks of Dixit cards. They work perfectly and make the game more beautiful, challenging, rewarding, and allow for way more repeatability before having to double dip into the same cards.
It is always good to hear both sides of an argument. However I find myself being more convinced by Scott Westerfield. To be fair, his arguments rested mostly on theories that works well in the entertainment industry in general, whereas you used specific games to prove your point. What if someone were to look at your examples and say "but all these example games are horrible, they literally suck!"? All VP based games features a strong element of accounting, which is something that certain people love so much that they made a career out of it. It's a sizeable demographic and as such these games should have good sales figures. But if you're not the accountant type, surely it's a good thing to be aware that VP based games have a strong bean counter element and there is a good chance you'll hate such games?
Race for the Galaxy has VP. It's interesting to see the story that your tableau tells at the end of the game.
First off: you're welcome. Second, I thought it was a noble effort to value VPs for their intrinsic value, but allow me to suggest some alternative winning conditions w/o VPs to counter-argument your point and prove why VPs are the 'lazy' theme-killing way of establishing game outcomes.
1. On Tour. The 'tension of KY' you describe IS the climax of the game, hence the goal. You build the longest route, for sure, but the zero sum of lose or win is the inclusion of KY.
2. Fantasy Realms. The fantasy theme itself lends itself 100% to a non-VP winning condition. How about replacing the values on the cards with a set of icons and a winning condition that you must have a certain (set of) icon(s) at the end of the game?
3. The Quacks of Quedlinberg. You already mentioned it. Currency. Currency in a game is fine and thematic (especially here). You're at a market brewing potions, you can expect to get paid or get a prize. But that prize should be the climax, the goal. Leave the VPs as currency for brewing an excellent potion.
4. Clank. You already mentioned that 'by taking a little bit away from the abstract nature of [VPs]' you help the theme of a game. And that's the whole point, right? Clank uses money/gold to further it's gameplay - there is nothing wrong with that at all. If, however, the focus was shifted to who DOESN'T get eaten by the dragon at the end of the game, you build a climax to a game that is otherwise about gold-counting. The gold should be the incentive, not the ultimate goal.
5. Downforce. "High-stakes bidding on million-dollar race cars." The money does count due to the theme, so I would give this one to 'Team VP' although the lack of a VP track and simplistic tallying of prize money, betting and bank money could be considered a climactic zero-sum game.
6. Isle of Skye. "In the end, the player with the best kingdom-and not the richest player-becomes the sovereign of the island." Here, the theme already says it. The best kingdom. So, sure, the game uses money and there's a catch-up mechanism, but that shouldn't be the goal of the game. The best kingdom could be a zero-sum of who has a combination of certain tiles and in what configuration.
7. Tzolk'in. "There are many paths to victory. Pleasing the gods by placing crystal skulls in deep caves or building many temples are just two of those many paths" Whether you 'sacrifice' workers on the Mayan clock gears to achieve this or just by doing so before your civilization comes to an end, no VPs should be needed to reach a satisfactory progression and conclusion to this Mayan tale.
8. A Feast for Odin. I'm glad you brought this one up, because OH MY ODIN, this looks like an accountant's wet dream (and subsequent thematic player's nightmare). Not only does is the titular feast for Odin reduced to a multi-board cornucopia of AP-inducing choices and placements, there is no personification, locations are reduced to geometry puzzles and it literally ends in a tallying of points. This couldn't be more the poster child of why VPs kill a theme. Any solution at this point would be preferable: build the 'Tetris-feast' to reach Valhalla, select ingredients to win a certain trophy, feed a village of Vikings to receive Odin's favor. Literally any other singular goal.
9. Ganz Schon Clever. You're right. This is not the best example, because there is no theme. None whatsoever, so it doesn't fit the requirement of a theme being killed by VPs.
10. The Castles of Mad King Ludwig. 'VPs allowing players to tell their own story' is like saying that a specific mechanism is allowing 'output story' to unfold. And if that's true, any mechanism can do that, not just VPs, in fact, BETTER mechanisms could do that (which is the whole point of Scott's argument). A deck of cards with 'achievements' that write out conditions (like a zany castle layout) could then reward players with resources to build even more rooms. A Ludwig meeple could visit a player's castle each round, based on his whims and award that player with one of the seven special rewards leading to a non-zero sum where multiple players could win on the characteristics of their specific castle rewards (biggest, most beautiful, zaniest, etc.).
This last game perfectly illustrates Scott's point: yes, you can use VPs, there is nothing wrong with that, except that I think it's a lazy, generic, theme-reducing mechanism that does not advance the atmospheric immersion of a game, and often actually pulls players out of a game. Now, if you're trying to ease players back into reality after 2-3 hours of gameplay, that is a good way of 'wrapping things up' but my argument is that with a little more thought and effort, any designer can come up with a better mechanism than VPs to stay within the game theme and determine a winner (if need be) or, preferably, a satisfactory conclusion to the narrative arc you're trying to tell with a game. And for the naysayers: this has nothing to do with games being story/scenario/narrative-driven or not, but more with the perfect union of theme and mechanics in a game. (Hence the reason why 'Ganz Schon Clever' was disqualified from this list - there has to be an inkling of a theme to begin with)
As to your argument about the game telling a story to you (or 'input story') vs the story players come up with (or 'output story') I would argue that VPs have nothing to do with this. The randomness of a game's elements and the freedom of direct, player action-related narrative determine this. Take 'Tales of the Arabian Nights' or even 'Mansions of Madness'. No VPs but also no real restrictions as to what output story players choose to come up with. Found a knife? How did you find it? Where did you stash it? What did you do tot he cultist it with it? It's up to you. But take 7 Wonders. Not only am I interrupted each round by what points I might be scoring for my little empire, I don't get to craft a story around my civilization at the end, cuz it's literally reduced to numbers on a notepad.
Finally, I look forward to your video about Top Ten Games That Don't Use Victory Points and I commend your ability and willingness to ALWAYS examine topics from both sides. This is a methodology that not many folks (like Scott) apply, and it is one of your most professional traits. Talking in absolutes is never good as it just leads to stigmatized arguments. So kudos, and maybe I can take the Devil's Advocate role in the next video and state under which conditions those games COULD flourish by being implemented with VPs!! (like your short look in the end at co-op games) ^_^
Well, one could argue the score in competitive group sports (football, basketball, etc) are exactly that: victory points.
While some sports matches can often feel a bit boring, which we really don't want in a boardgame, they can definitely tell great stories through the victory point system. I mean, just look at the two champions league semi-finals we've just had with Barcelona vs Liverpool and Ajax vs Tottenham. These matches will have a place in history forever.
To bring this back to boardgames: I have my own personal project that is a 2v2 football (aka soccer) game.
In every playtest thus far, even when a team is lagging behind on the scoreboard and likely to lose the game, the players are deeply invested in trying to steal ball possession, close the score gap, or try something crazy to attempt a comeback.
I would probably be able to retell several matches, what strategies were used, and how and when fortune favored (or didn't favor) the bold. Which is exactly what I'm trying to do with this game: tell stories.
Also, I have great VP-related stories for both Agricola and Caverna; albeit related to scoring oversights. Like 7 Wonders, they're those sorts of games where you might have a good idea of who's won but little surprises can happen at the end (its own kind of story).
Well, the first time we played Caverna with 4 of us, we totted up all the scores at the end and my friend had won by 1 point. As he began to celebrate, I realised something, "Oh, are dogs worth points?" I was told it should've been mentioned during the animal bit of scoring. I had 2 dogs...
Honest mistake. My friend swore (and he did swear) it was deliberate.
On another occasion with Agricola and the same group of 4 and the same friend, we were both tied for victory. The next day, while sat at some traffic lights, I had a sudden realisation. Back home, I checked my phone because I'd actually taken a photo to post on BGG. Going over all the categories to double-check, it confirmed my suspicion: I'd not included whichever card it was that gave a bonus point for 3 clay. I messaged my friend with the photo, beginning my explanation: I've done it again...
Last year, we played Caverna again but with 5 of us (glutton for punishment?) and we tied (there was actually a moment where a miscalculation looked like I'd beaten him by 1 point again). HOWEVER, we played just the other day and he won by 4 points and he had 5 dogs. Now, he's never going to shut up about it...
Like many others here, I also watched the video you are referring to. I think _most_ people believe he's completely out in left field with his assertions. I think it's an interesting thought experiment, but ultimately I can't agree with one of his axioms. "Games should tell a story." All his arguments stem from this idea. Well, I'm pretty sure the vast majority of people wouldn't agree with this axiom. It's pretty ridiculous, and it almost feels like he's just trolling gamers. Surely he doesn't believe that *all* games should tell a story. haha
The thought experiment is: Should the axiom be: "A game can be made better by telling a story." ???
I think this is where a healthy discussion can occur. For me, I don't think so. I can't imagine ever enjoying baseball, no matter what story it begins to tell. Likewise, I can't imagine liking basketball more, if it told a story. Surely this is all speculation, but it's at least interesting to think about.
Perhaps he just meant board games (not sports, or _all_ games). Would I enjoy Puerto Rico more, if it had a story motivating the direction of the game? I don't think so, but I would have to test it to find out. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Good subject
I like victory points. Sometimes, like high scores in videogames, they're just the best way of comparing how you're doing with other players. Games without VPs and with strong narratives tend to be co-operative games, and I really don't enjoy many co-op games.
In all games I prefer more sandbox-y designs, with multiple ways to win/succeed (or fail), multiple deep strategies to explore, and good replay value - and Victory Points are often the best way to normalize/compare multiple different activities and paths to victory in a way everyone understands.
Bad narrative-based designs have wrecked plenty of videogame franchises I liked over the years, shackling the gameplay to more linear paths, where choices/decisions are illusory or not there at all, and don't change overall outcomes much from just a succeed/fail binary. I don't want to see that trend coming to boardgames at all.
I want to make my own stories in games, not follow pre-prepared narrative paths - I'll read a written/graphic/audiobook novel or watch a movie/TV show if I want to consume someone else's linear narrative - those media forms do it better - but if I want to make my own story and my own decisions then I'll play a game - whether that's on my computer/tablet, at my boardgaming table, role-playing or wargaming.
Late edit to answer Jamey's question: Almost all my favourite games use VPs: Chaos in the Old World (VPs & victory dials!), Five Tribes, Isle of Skye, Mission: Red Planet, Thebes, Colosseum, Chimera Station, Raiders of the North Sea, Tides of Madness, Lords of Waterdeep, Root, Blood Bowl too I guess ;) - and your own Viticulture. My only fave games that don't use VPs of any kind are Cyclades, Batman Gotham City Chronicles and Space Hulk (all of which have an objective-based win condition, scenario-based in the case of BGCC and Space Hulk).
I thought Scott had an interesting take (though his talk meandered quite a lot and dealt in colorful absolutes that shouldn't be taken too seriously). I mostly agree with him, I generally don't like games with victory points because they break immersion by being thematically disconnected and they often have unsatisfying conclusions (i.e. everyone pulls out their calculators to figure out who won). I'm perfectly fine with victory points in abstract games and dexterity games/sports, but I prefer more thematic games to find another victory condition than collecting victory points. That's often a matter of taste and personal preference, but I think designers should consider the thematic implications of victory points and how they affect player experience - Do they break immersion? Could they be something else? I think that's what the big takeaway of Scott''s talk should be.
I can understand how victory points have the potential to get in the way of a story but ultimately they are a tool. A carpenter can trip over his hammer if he leaves it laying around but that doesn’t mean he should get rid of it!
A distinction that I think is worth making is how the game ends. Catan ends when someone hits 10 VP. Lords of Waterdeep uses VP's but ends after 8 rounds regardless of VP's. This difference can really change your approach.
For co-op games I think Time Stories does? Maybe Sherlock Holmes as well. Just as a way of telling you how well you succeeded. Typically they're used to differentiate competing players so I don't see a lot of point to them in co-op games. Also co-ops tend to be more thematic in my experience. Therefore a goal of survival or taking down a dragon are much more thematic then hitting a certain point total.
Ganz schön clever is fantastic . Greetings from Germany 😁
My friends and I are currently playing the newest Dungeon and Dragons board game. I feel like the gold and experience points in the game are victory points. Kill monsters to get experience with enough you can cancel bad events. Also get gold to buy items and level up. Between missions we would say how much do we need to level someone up. Everyone would count up their gold. We need this much more or we have enough.
I think you miss represent mad king Ludwig through scots eyes. Scots point is that when you build the castle theres a formula that will allow you to win. Scot wasn't advocating for a scenario where one castle layout was the ultimate goal. His point was when we each have our individual castles we then spent very long applying the abstract formulas to see who won as opposed to having each achieved our own goals/objectives in this case the madest castle you could create.
I felt his point boiled down to you dont win a book or a movie is winning the board game a goal is it the climax we even want. Or is it the experience that is the goal or completing your own objectives the goal. And his other point is if declaring a winner is the goal is this best accomplished through an accounting activity of is there a "better" way he advocates a narratively suitable ending. A narratively suitable ending for your character or faction.
Personally I think this not something achievable by most games and declaring a winner is subjective. Whereas while abstract methods might damage the narrative experience for the players the declaration will be an objective state of fact.
I'll finish up on this as scot used it as an example. I love champions of midgard. However towards the end of the game i find myself playing the game as opposed to playing the story of the game. If its not economical to sail out and kill monsters because of set collection and its better for me to hoard wood or food. I may win but im hardly a champion of midgard or of any thing.
So i feel his core point rings true victory points can take us out of game world and just look at it in terms of efficient and inefficient actions.
Mr. Stegmaier seems to really like Isle of Skye. Does anyone know how he feels about the expansions?
I've only played Journeyman, and I discussed it here: th-cam.com/video/z_K1XyeFD8E/w-d-xo.html
Dominion, Targi, Lords of Waterdeep, Dice Forge, etc...so many games with VPs that are fantastic...I don’t understand all the hate
Jamey do you ever get told you look a lot like Christopher Cousins??! 😂
I've never heard that, but thank you! :)
Wow, what players do you play Downforce with to say that it has "some negative interaction?" Our games are full of blocking each other in the meanest way possible. 😃
Well, what I love about Downforce is that you're never making someone lose progress they've already earned. You may strategically and temporarily block someone, but just as often you're moving other cards forward along with yours.
Competition vs story. Competition itself creates stories, a game were players compete but the game is focused on creating good stories might not be an interesting game to compete at and thus destroys the possibility of stories coming up from competition. I think the guy lacked imagination, you can come up with great stories by just looking at the state of a game board and the VP track.
Carcassonne and Revolution! literally wouldn't be playable without points. Both tell good stories. He's way off base.
Co-op version of near and far,
Fantasy Realms looks like a rummy variant.
The guy just doesn't like games, there's no need to go over why VP's work. Imagine reading a novel and going "that was nice, but there wasn't any strategic decisions to be made here". Yeah, it's absurd. Just as absurd as that SHUX talk.