Okay, it's just one card...

Bonsai Samurai is a good example of a micro game where micro is pretty much the point of a game. 

It is a print-and-play from 2006 and it's big claim to fame that it consists of one card. It's far from the only game made out of one card out there and you still need a couple tokens. Jungle, from DiVinci games, is a one card game where the card is the only components, making it a more 'perfect' example of that goal.

Bonsai Samurai is a duel between two samurai warriors. I'll wait until everyone stops laughing. It's really rock-paper-scissors variant where you use the card as a spinner to help determine damage. Really, the only interesting mechanic is that throwing the same symbol doesn't automatically neutralize the action.

But really, novelty is the only interesting thing about the game. In fact, for many years, it's one of the examples I've used that micro games don't need to focus on being small but being good games.

And I am still planning on making a nice version of it.

Why? 

Well, it's a five minute project that I can toss in my bag. If something terrible happens to it (which would actually be impressive since I'm laminating it), not a big deal. If nothing else, it'd get a few laughs at a con.

And it might be a game to distract our son when he's just a little bit older at restaurants and such. I'm sure that it will quickly get replaced by deeper and frankly much better games like Cinq-O and Pico 2. But if I even get one session like that of Bonsai Samurai, it will have been worth making.

Which isn't to say that I'm calling it a good game. I can make some pretty compelling arguments that straight up rock paper scissors is a better game. But I will have fun crafting it and if it sees play, what the heck.

(The thought of one card games has made me plan on reformatting Jungle, which I mentioned earlier, with low ink line drawings. Having a game that really is just a card and nothing else will be worth putting the side Coin Age in my wallet.)

Just got the second set of Pack O Games

My copy of the second set of Pack O Games came in the mail yesterday. And it should surprise absolutely no one that I have been looking forward to getting these. I have been a shameless fan of the first set. It has been a great travel library with a solid variety of games. 

The second set has ten games, compared to the eight games of the original set. One of them was a mystery Kickstarter exclusive so that was a fun surprise. Backers have been asked not to spoil that game so all I will say is that it is the game that probably has interested my wife the most out of the new set.

While it's going to take us a while to work our way through the second set, I would say that Chris Handy has upped his game with these games. On their in-house game of complexity, only one of these games is listed as casual. And that game, DIG, looks like it would've been considered intermediate in the original set.

This isn't necessarily a good thing. I personally thought that TAJ from the original set, rated challenging, ended up being fiddly due to the relative complexity of the rules for the length of play. Oh, I thought that it was innovative and ambitious but it was near the bottom of my enjoyment level.

In general, I would say that the second set really looks like it's aimed more of a gamer audience. The first has a wealth of games that are really good for a casual play and for non-gamers. It will really be interesting exploring this new set, which I truly believe was designed with a different set of goals.

I also want to note that this set has more two-player only games. Which is great by me, since a lot of my face-to-face gaming is with my wife after the toddler has gone to bed.

While I had high hopes for the original set, it exceeded my expectations. Heck, while it is not my favorite game from the series, I think SHH could break out with the mainstream audience. So the bar is set pretty high for the second set. But my hopes are still high. It's not like lightning struck once with the first set. It has five different games I know I will be playing for years to come. That's a really promising batting average. 

Introducing a three-year-old to Beauty and the Beast

We have been on a quest to find alternative to Frozen. Not that we dislike Frozen. I think it's a brilliant film on many levels but we sometimes watch it four times a week. We are just looking for something to break up the viewings.

Our first attempt was Beauty and the Beast, which our son calls the Belle movie.

Beauty and the Beast is a fairly important movie for me, at least as far as my relationship with Disney movies go. It was the first movie that I saw in the theater after the Black Cauldron made me pretty much give up on Disney movies.

(Not only was the Black Cauldron a pretty bad movie in another itself, it also made a complete shambles out of the children series that is important to me. The Chronicles of Prydian is wonderful series, although not my favorite series by Lloyd Alexander. That'd be the Westmark trilogy. Which is completely unsuitable for Disney animation. Then again, so was the hunchback of Notre Dame.)

Part of the reason why Beauty and the Beast made such a big difference for me was that it was the first time I felt like Disney showed a relationship develop rather than love at first sight. It's a topic that they'd explore more in later movies and I now realize they covered it before in Lady and the Tramp (seriously, think what that movie would be like if the characters were human) Still, it made an impression on me.

I have to admit, revisiting the movie again after so many years, did make me notice some things I didn't notice before. For one thing, if you were just a character in the background, you kind of had a body built like a bowl of jelly. You have to love how much animation keeps on developing.

We were also both struck by how short the movie felt and how fast everything seem to go by. But, it is a children's film and our memories probably stretched out the development of the plot.

It's the timeline that really doesn't make any sense. It certainly seems like Belle is a captive in the Beast's castle for several weeks and more likely months. Meanwhile, judging by the actions of the village and Maurice, it was really just a long weekend. It seriously doesn't make any sense.

Despite those issues, which are really testimonies to how Disney has risen their own standards, Beauty and the Beast still holds up for me. The music is top notch and the relationship of the main characters is compelling.

Of course, the real question is how did the three-year-old take the movie? 

I would say that we had slightly mixed results. He definitely enjoyed the music, particularly Be Our Guest. He had seen pictures of the ballroom dress and was thrilled to see yellow-dress Belle. So, he had fun watching it and it held his attention to the end.

However, he will still always pick Frozen over Beauty and the Beast. So, it didn't pass that crucial test for us :D

No, we wouldn't achieve that goal until our next attempt. Trolls.

Tiny board games versus tiny RPGs

As I have often written, I am fascinated by micro games for a wide variety of reasons. There has never been any real doubt that word games that are micro games are radically different than role-playing games that are micro games. However, since I've been talking about micro RPG's with some of my friends, the stark contrast between the two has been bouncing around my head.

Micro games, which pretty much always refers to the board or card games, have relatively few pieces, take a little storage space, have a relatively small footprint and A relatively short playing time. In other words, games that are easy to transport and play on the fly.

For instance, I have carried around Pico 2 for years because it takes up almost no space, takes no time to teach and can be played at the drop of a hat. 

On the other hand, micro RPG simply means that it is a very short rulebook. Often, only a couple pages. However, they usually take up about as much space as any other role playing game, unless you are using a mat and miniatures. In which case, you're definitely not in the market for a micro RPG, anyway.

While micro RPG's tend to be for one shots, as opposed to campaigns, there are plenty of one rule books that are designed for one shot games. Fiasco, just to name one that does a really good job at it. Frankly, I could go on for a while.

And, unlike micro games where simple rules make it easier to learn and play the game, sometimes too simple, the sandbox nature of role-playing games makes a super short rulebook actually an impediment. Too much ambiguity and not enough explanation.

When I look at a micro game, I ask myself if it would be any good to play and if I am likely to ever get it on the table. When I look at a micro RPG, I ask myself if it's fun to read. 

The false illusion of racing games

Thinking about Lines of Action reminded me of Ramses, another game where movement is determined by the number of pieces. And, thinking about Ramses made think of China Moon, another game where you move your opponents pieces.

And thinking about China Moon has not only made me think about the game itself but the origins of the game.

China Moon was one of the first Bruno Faidutti's designs and it was designed to be a race game where there wasn't any luck, onlfy skill. He has cited Hare and Tortoise as a major influence and inspiration.

I have to admit that I have never played Hare and Tortoise, which I do consider a gap in my gaming life. It won the first Spiele de Jahres and  it is still considered groundbreaking for how it handled creating a race game that didn't involve rolling dice or any other random mechanic.

I have come close to buying Hare and Tortoise a couple times over the years. But, I never ended up pulling the trigger and, at this point, I would have to play it a few times before I would get it.

But this did get me thinking about how racing, as a genre, often feels like the poor cousin in the board gaming hobby. It's obviously a false feeling since there are tons of beloved and successful racing games out there. Formula D, Snow Tails, Thunder Alley, Winner's Circle, et cetera, et cetera. And it's a theme that is super easy to engage non-gamers. 

However, while racing is clearly a successful and beloved genre, it still doesn't seem to get the love other genres. I have regularly heard people introduce Formula D or Detroit-Cleveland Grand Prix as a different, fun race game.

Frankly, I blame The Royal Game of Goose, which also wrecked the reputation of Roll and Move as a mechanic. Even if you haven't seen the Royal Game of Goose, you know what I'm talking about. A single track where each player has one pawn and roll a die to see how far they move, along with special spaces that give bonuses or penalties. What has become the generic game for the back of cereal boxes or children's place mats. A game with absolutely no choices.

I do have to note that the Royal Game of Goose started out as a gambling game for adults. Which does explain why it is so random. After all, the Nevada Board of Gaming doesn't allow games of skill to be used in casinos. Poker got grandfathered in and it's openly admitted it would never make it as a new game.

But it does kind of amaze me what an impact the Royal Game of Goose has had on the perception of both racing games and roll-and-move. Both Ludo and in particular Backgammon are far older and better games that offer real choices and interaction. But people don't think of them as the fundamental representation of those genres.

I guess this is an example about perception doesn't really have anything to do with reality. I don't think I've met anyone who actually dislikes racing games or genuinely pooh-poohs them. It's like there is a false majority of there.

And I know that I am going to keep on playing racing games and good role-and-move games. Games like China Moon or Winner's Circle or That's Life are all good games to teach people who don't play a lot of games but are still fun and rewarding for those of us who do.

https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/7204/china-moon

https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/361/hare-tortoise

https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/2785/game-goose

Ramses - an abstract that the world forgot

Ramses is a game that has bounced back on my radar. I think it's a game that falls under a lot of folks' radar. For one thing, it's an abstract which isn't everyone's thing. For another, it had a very limited publication, although making your own copy is super easy. 

The board, which is small enough to fit on one page, consists of three rows of spaces. The middle row has twelve pieces while the top and the bottom have five, the last space long and stretched out. Plus, five of the spaces have Egyptian hieroglyphs on them.

Both players get four pawns. On your turn, you first move one of your

pawns and THEN one of your opponent's pawns. A pawn must move the number of spaces as the number of pawns in either its column or row, which ever one is greater. You can zigzag but you can't move diagonally or backtrack.

The game ends when either someone has pieces on three of the hieroglyphs and wins or when someone can't complete a move and loses. 

Trust me, if you have the board and pieces in front of you and can show examples, Ramses is super easy to teach and learn. My explanation may have been too complicated.

And Ramses is a head cracker.

The real brain burning part of the game is having to move one of your opponent's pieces and it always has to be after you move your own. Ramses isn't the first game I've played where you move your opponent's pieces. China Moon burned that bridge long ago.

But China Moon has a simpler board (since it's basically a track), simpler movement rules and allows you to move your opponent first, letting you set up moves for yourself. It's still a shockingly deep game for its rules, Ramses is just deeper. 

You have a claustrophobic board that is very dynamic. Every move dramatically changes what moves can be made. And it's all open information so you can see exactly how every move will affect the board. 

I have had a lot of fun with Ramses. It's definitely an interesting game and I have not played it nearly enough to get good at it or figure out some of its tricks. It's a game that keeps me wanting to come back for more.

And, while it's hard to get a manufactured copy, making your own is easy. Heck, you could draw the board freehand and use pocket change for the pieces. I have seen pictures of people making boards out of Carcassonne tiles with meeples for pawns.

And there are plenty of files online that you can use to print off your own board. When I first discovered Ramses, I printed off a board and used glass beads for pieces. When i recently remembered it, I printed off a nice board and laminated it for longevity.

Really, if you're interested in abstracts, there's no excuse not to try Ramses and you owe it to yourself to try it. Of course, if you decided to read this, you probably already have.

https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/1529/ramses

https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/7204/china-moon

The issues of Micro RPGs

OfOver the last few years, I have looked at a decent number of micro RPGs. Those aren't just RPGs that are designed for one-shots but ones that take up only a few pages. I often discuss them with friends, including some who are really only interested in longer, deeper games.

One of those recent conversations really hammered home to me how micro RPG's are odd genre, one that is more defined about format than anything else.

Seriously, while micro RPGs are all minimal rule systems, minimal rule systems don't mean micro RPG. Baron Munchausen has two pages of rules but it has very a hundred pages on setting, theme and tone. It is designed for light, short one-shots with minimal preparation but it's not a micro RPG.

Let's be honest, when a role playing game is only a few pages long, it is impossible for it to really discuss setting or gaming philosophy or anything more than the bare bones. And sometimes... okay, most of the time, that's really not enough.

The ultimate goal of a micro RPG is that you should be able to pull it out if your picket, slap it down in front of people who have never seen it before and have a game going in five minutes. 

I have seen some that do pull that off. The Name of God, which is even laid on a set of cards for easy transport, is one. But most just don't have enough meat. To be painfully honest, I have read two or three dozen of them in the last three years and there are only three or four that I seriously want to get on the table. And I am obviously part of their target audience.

But, I don't think that's entirely a bad thing. Even if I don't view them as games to play, that doesn't mean they aren't interesting thought exercises. I get a lot of fun out of looking at them in experiments in game mechanics. And it is really easy to and one to a friend, see 'here, read this', and have a conversation going in five minutes.

A great example is A Flask Full of Gasoline. It is an absolute hoot to read and I have shared it with a lot of my friends. Really, anyone who might even be slightly interested. And I would never, ever play the game since it includes rules for drinking gasoline. Not the characters. The players. But, man, have I had some fun conversations about it.

Let's be honest. I am going to keep on reading micro RPGs and I am going to keep on commenting on them. Because it is fun and they give me a quick RPG fix and because they do bring up ideas worth discussing.

Heck, how many full-size RPG's am I going to play? :D Really, when you think about what a micro RPG has to pull off, I am lucky to have found ones like the Name of God or Keeton's Journey that I think would be really good to play.