Looking back at Hive and Blokus

When contemplating modern abstracts, two games that were huge for me and games I’m no longer that interested in are Hive and Blokus. Both of which I consider to be poster children for “You don’t like abstracts? Try this one’

Mind you, I still think both games are top notch and, more than that, still very important. Hive continues to be held up as the game that people who hate abstracts love. Blokus has had and I’m pretty sure continues to have mainstream success. I think they’ll both be around and getting played twenty years from now.

Hive faded for me because the folks I regularly play with are meh about it and prefer other light abstracts. I’d certainly play it again and it’s not leaving my collection. And it is definitely a modern classic.

As a rule, I’m more of a fan of putting stones on a board than moving stones around the board. However, Hive does both. It isn’t the only build-the-board-as-go game but it is the best I’ve seen. Tile Chess seems to force the game to fit that idea while it feels organic and intuitive in Hive.

On the other hand, Blokus has left my collection. I do think it’s a very good design and an abstract that works brilliantly for four players, which isn’t the usual count for a perfect information abstract. However, I found meh as a two-player (at least once a game, it seemed like someone would forget which color they were on) and it’s downright dreadful as a three-player game.

To be fair, Blokus Dual and Blokus Trigon are what have replaced it. So, it’s not like I went that far away. However, Blokus Dual is so much stronger as a two-player game and Trigon is great at both four-player and three-player. To be even more fair, neither of those two games I like more would exist if it wasn’t for the original Blokus!

(Note number one: Blokus 3D started out life as Rumis and really isn’t part of the same design process. I do like Rumis quite a bit, though)

(Point number two, in case anyone is wondering about Cathedral, I’ve never been able to get into it. Which is odd since it really seems right up my alley)

While my interest in both these games has faded (although I can see Hive getting rekindled), they both were big deals for me in the past. And I think they are still big deals for abstracts and the hobby.

Catchup: classic abstract feel

When I read up about Catchup, I decided that I needed to try it out. As it turned out, my account at Little Golem is still active so I wen there for a short visit so I could get in a game of Catchup.

Catchup has a classic abstract feel. Perfect information, two players and no theme. Catchup is played on a hexagonal grid with players taking turns setting down stones. The goal is to have the single largest group of stones when you've filled up the board.

The twist is whoever has the largest group on the board (not total, just largest single group) can only place two stones. The other player can place three stones.

It's an interesting touch and definitely makes the game. Since I was playing online, Little Golem kindly kept track of that for us and I didn't think about keeping track. However, looking at Russ Williams review of the game, I realized that could be an issue in a face-to-face game. You'll need some kind of system to keep it from being a pain.

I had fun with Catchup. I like abstract placement games. Every move develops the board and keeps pushing the game forward. Catchup took that basic and effective formula and just added a couple tweaks. Between the short playing time in the quickly developing board, Catchup stays interesting through the whole game.

In my one play, I found myself focusing on making as many cutting moves as I could. It's definitely a very conflict centered game, quickly becoming a knife fight in a telephone booth. And I'm sure that further plays will reveal greater depth.

Catchup isn't my favorite new abstract. I wouldn't put it in the top tier of abstracts. It's good but it's not brilliant. That said, I have played some boring and broken and just plain bad abstracts. The fact that Catchup is dynamic and interesting is a major win for the designer.

https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/68199/catchup

Minimalism in an L-Shape

Very, very early in my explorations of boardgames, I came across the L-Game. It was Edward de Bono's first exercise in minimalist game design. I know that he later revisited minimalist game design with 3 Spot but the L-Game was the one that I first discovered. 

To be fair, those are the only two games I have played by de Bono but they also are the only major games I understand he designed. Well, for certain value of major.

The L-Game consists of five pieces, including the board. It is a 4 x 4 board with two gray neutral pieces in each player has one piece, shaped like an L, in their own color.

The game is super simple. You must first move your piece. You may then move one of the neutral pieces. If you can't make a move, you lose.

Perfect play in the L-Game will result in the game never-ending. Usually, a game being solved means either the first or second player can force a win. Never ending is a bit different.

Now, for me, that's not a plus. The L-Game is an example of a game that can reset itself over and over again, instead of developing. Early when I was getting back into board games, part of rediscovering Othello was realizing how the board filling up acted as a timer and meant the board was always changing.

I am still fond of the L-Game. Part of that is nostalgia. Part of it is that every game I've played of it has had someone win, although the game effectively resetting itself is kind of annoying. 

But a lot of my fondness comes from the unique and unusual feel of the game. It may not be the most minimal game I've ever played but between the small size, small number of components and simplicity of the rules, it marries minimalism with a classic feel. 

The small size, fond memories, the unusual feel and the fact that my

dad likes it has kept the L-Game in my collection. It definitely isn't for everyone, not even for abstract lovers. But it can make you scratch your head.

https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/6474/l-game

Toddlers and the tablets of Babylon

As I have slowly been letting go enough to let our toddler play with some of Daddy's games, Bruno Faidutti's Babylon has come out to play. Since it consists of twelve sturdy plastic tablets and nothing else, it'll take some serious effort for him to break any of it.

I picked Babylon up about five years ago, in large part because it had come across my radar so much as a minimalist game. Back in 2003, having only twelve total pieces was a selling point (although I can think of other games with less that predated it) In fact, most of for Faidutti's comments about it seem to be about how small it was. When the guy who designed it focuses on the novelty element, you know the gameplay isn't that strong.

The tablets come in four different colors and the game starts out with them all just sitting out. On your turn, you combine two stacks tablets. They either have to be the same height or be the same color on top. First person who can't make a move loses.

Babylon is a ridiculously quick game, even by the standards of fillers. The official playing time is five minutes and two minutes is  more accurate. More than that, although I have gone out of my way to not find out how, the game has been solved. 

So basically, Faidutti invented an alternative to Tic Tac Toe.

I got the game when I saw it at the GenCon auction hall all those years ago for the gee whiz factor and intellectual curiosity. Even though I knew I could cobble together a functional version of the game with poker chips or Looney Pyramids in fifteen seconds, I knew that the presentation factor of the authentic tablets was the only way I'd get the Babylon played.

Heck, not only did I know I needed the tablets to interest other people, I knew I'd be a lot more interested myself.

While Babylon isn't a great game and might even be a flawed and broken game, it still has some interest for me. I am amused by how it has a syntax built on two terms, hence the whole Babel connection. There is a variation where it is a move to add tablets to the playing field, which allegedly unsolves it. Plus, it's a quick and easy time filler that isn't dice or cards.

But it's the toy factor that really got it into my collection, kept in my collection (along with the tiny size) and has it seen regular use since the toddler likes playing with them and stacking them up.

And, while he's still not clear about the rules (being able to stack stacks of the same size still alludes him), I am working on teaching him the actual game of Babylon to him. It is looking like it will be part of his introduction to abstracts. And, given its tactile nature, it might be perfect as one of a toddler's first abstracts.

I don't think Bruno Faidutti intended to make Babylon as a toddler game. I'm pretty sure it was just an exercise in minimalism. However, I think it's real value in my gaming life with be alongside Tic Tac Toe and Connect 4 and whatever I decide to first teach the kid with Looney Pyramids.

 

https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/7553/babylon

 

Another stab at elegance

When I look at the school of German Family Games, a word I see a lot is elegant. But elegance is a word that can mean a lot of things to different people. But in this particular case, I'm pretty sure that what elegance means simplicity. Not that the rules or the play is necessarily simple but that everything is stripped down to just what it needed to play the games.

(On the other hand, in Euros, elegance means that the game is complex but all the moving parts all fit together like clockwork. Which could mean the same thing, since you usually don't have extra gears in your pocket watch. But it doesn't feel simple so I'm calling it a different flavor of elegant.)

This is one case where the philosophy of German Family Games and Abstract Games overlaps. That simplicity is a key element to so many abstracts. Go is one of the complex games I have ever played, perhaps the most complex. But the ruleset is very minimal. Other genuine classics, like Checkers or Mancala or Hex are even more minimal. Seriously, Hex is so minimal but it is still a challenging and interesting game. But it is clearly not a German Family Game.

Part of my old definition of an abstract used to include no random elements and no hidden information. However, as I've heard many games I love Qwirkle or Ingenious described as abstracts, I've come to accept that that's too rigid a definition. However, I feel that games like Ingenious, originally introduced to me as a German Family Game, show how blurry the line between the schools can be.

One designer who I feel embraced that blurry line, probably helped create that blurry line, is Alexander Randolph. He and Sid Sackson helped guide the 3M game line back in the 1960s and 1970s, which helped develop the modern designer game. The 3M line definitely pushed the idea of games that weren't for children or for gambling but for intellectual stimulation. Oh lord, that sounded so snobby and elitist.

Many of his designs like Ghosts or Ricochet Robots or Bison or Twixt are fundamentally abstracts. Man, there is no other way to describe Twixt but as an abstract. But they were aimed at the audience that would define German Family Games. I wonder what he would make after he saw what has been designed today. (Of course, I wonder even more what Sid Sackson would design)

I do believe that these two schools of philosophy use simplicity for different reasons. The Abstract school, not always intentionally, uses minimalism to refine the game. The German Family Game school uses simplicity to make games accessible. 

Abstract Games as philosophy is probably one of the most nebulous ones. After all, it includes centuries upon centuries of games that were independently developed all over the globe. So much of it comes from the natural organic development that took place over time. Minimalism necessity for games to be passed down by word-of-mouth over generations. German Family Games, on the other hand, are intentionally designed for a targeted audience.

So, when I just use the word elegant to describe a German Family Game, I guess I mean easy to teach and fun to play.

Tak: the reality behind what was fiction

Tak belongs to that curious family of games that were fictional and someone decided to make real. The game was mentioned in Patrick Rothfuss's The Wise Man's Fear and James Ernst made the game real.

The object of the game is to build a road across the board. You can place your stones on the board either flat as flagstones or on their sides as walls. You can move an already placed flagstone one space, including on top of another flagstone. You cannot move onto a wall but walls cannot move and do not count as part of the road.

Both players get a special piece called the capstone. It is the only piece that can flatten a wall and nothing can be put on top of the capstone.

There is also a special rule for moving a stack of pieces. The person on top, controlling the stack, can move the stack more than one space but they have to leave the bottom piece behind after the first move. It's rather like sowing in Mancala. 

I will be honest. I wasn't terribly interested in Tak when I first heard about it. I do love me some abstracts something fierce but I didn't feel like it offered me anything I hadn't seen before. I have played some really good modern abstracts but I've also played some pretty bad ones too.

But there was a giant set of Tak at Rincon 2016 and I saw in steady use so I ended up giving it a go. And then ended up playing the game three more times.

I know Tak is supposed to feel like a game that's been around for generations and it has a bit of that feel. However, what really

stood out for me was how intuitive it felt. I was able to pick it up and make more experienced players sweat for their wins.

There are some very interesting choices. Using a stone as a wall is a good blocking move but it doesn't help you build your road. The capstone is a strong piece but it has to enter the game on an empty space, like any other space. And getting it out telegraphs how you will use it.

One part of the game that I still have a long ways to really get a good handle on is the sowing move. Building up a stack and being able to effectively make a whole bunch of move is very strong and great stepped into to make that big, dramatic move. But you have to work your way there.

And there is also a strong alternate game ending condition. If you place all your stones first, you lose. That adds tension to the game as well as a timer. If your opponent forces you to place stones, it puts you on the defensive on a couple levels.

Tak doesn't quite make the top tier of modern abstracts for me. Games like the GIPF Project or the Blokus Family or Hive have set a very high standard for me. However, it is definitely a second tier game. It is easy to pick up and understand but it has enough depth to reward continued play and exploring the game. 

The game hasn't actually come out yet but everything I need to know about making my own copy is available. And I am planning on doing that.

http://cheapass.com/free-games/tak/

Volcano, one of the classics of Looney Pyramids

If there is a game that truly embraces the unique nature of the Looney Pyramids, it is Volcano.

There are a lot of abstract strategy games in the Looney Pyramid catalog. A good chunk of the early games, for instance most of the games in Playing with Pyramids, are pure abstract strategy games without any random elements.

Played out on a five by five grid, Volcano is a game about collecting sets of pyramids by strategically causing volcano eruptions. Some years ago, I wrote a fairly detailed review and rules summary : https://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/202091/very-unconventional-abstract Looking back at it, I have to say that Volcano is much easier to demonstrate than to explain.

The thumbnail sketch of Volcano is that you move the volcano caps around to cause eruptions, which are basically the pyramids playing hopscotch. When a pyramid lands on another pyramid the same size, you get to keep that pyramid for scoring. You get extra points collecting  a trio of the same color and when someone gets a pyramid in every color, the game ends.

There is definitely a learning curve to Volcano. As I said, actually understanding how the game works mechanically doesn't seem to click until you see the game in action. The next part of the learning curve is figuring out how to set up good moves :D

Volcano is a game that really requires the stacking nature of the pyramids, as well as three different sizes. It clearly was developed out of the very nature of the pyramids. Plus, there's no denying that, as abstract as it is, the pyramids help it live up to the Volcano name.

Plus, Volcano is a very solid game. Definitely forces you to think in different ways so it is intellectually challenging. At the same time, causing eruptions and collecting colorful pyramids is an off a lot of fun. For such a different game, it's an easy one to get people interested.

I've been playing Volcano for years. Sadly, not regularly enough to get really good at it but I keep coming back to it. I consider it one of the games that really elevated the Looney Pyramid system, a game I'd buy and keep playing even if it was the only game in the system.

https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/13084/volcano

http://icehousegames.org/wiki/index.php?title=Volcano