Friday Night Shots – Player Interaction

Good evening! Welcome back for another week.

I’m so happy you could join me.

Truth to tell, it gets a little lonely behind the bar in this place, even on a Friday night.

Maybe I should actually unlock the doors so people could come in?

Just a thought.

Anyway, take a seat and have a drink! I got anything you want.

Let me turn the music down (I’ll call tomorrow to get Justin Bieber removed from the jukebox) so we can have a chat.

Tonight, let’s talk about how much player interaction you prefer in your games.

I know, I know. Most regular respondents to these Shots posts are people who love interaction. Hell, they’re wargamers! Or do love wargames, anyway.

But how about some of you who are lurking in the background?

Let your feelings be known!

This came to mind when I did my Paladins of the West Kingdom review, because that game (with a few exceptions) is kind of multiplayer solitaire. Your player board has most of your actions and you’re only competing for a few actions, and then possibly which cards to take (Townsfolk or Outsiders).

And also spaces on the main board to put your Monks and Garrisons.

That’s an interesting term: multiplayer solitaire.

I’m not sure I like it, but I’m also not sure of a better way to describe it.

Basically, multiplayer solitaire games are those games where most of the actions that you do don’t really affect the other players. You are building your own engine, taking your own points, the most competition you will have is for cards (or whatever) that will help build your engine.

This actually brings up the question: how much interaction is required before a game isn’t considered multiplayer solitaire?

I mean, some games literally are multiplayer solitaire.

Most roll & writes are, for example. At least in my experience (he says, not having played many roll & writes, but from what he’s seen, they are).

But the term usually is meant derogatively about euro engine-building games.

That’s where the question comes in.

Is it multiplayer solitaire if the only interaction in a worker placement game is taking the action space somebody else wants, like in Caverna or Agricola?

Or the card/dice (in a dice-drafting game) that somebody wants?

Like maybe in Sagrada?

(I cheated and used my pic from the app version. Sue me)

That’s an example of “indirect interaction,” but is it enough for multiplayer solitaire?

I think we all have different preferences on the spectrum between “no interaction” and “I’m going to kill all of your people!” interaction.

I do like that some euros are adding a bit more direct interaction, even if it’s not actual conflict.

Age of Innovation (and its predecessors, like Terra Mystica) encourages you to build your stuff next to other players because then you get energy benefits when they upgrade.

Of course, this also can lead to the typical euro interaction of “you took my space!” when you build onto a space that they wanted to.

But hey, you’re still neighbours and interacting!

This also brings us to euro games that have a few (but only a few) “take-that” elements.

Terraforming Mars has a few “take-that” cards where you are causing another player to lose resources or production. (though funnily enough, Terraforming Mars: Ares Expedition doesn’t have any, I don’t think)

Then there are the Mandatory Quests in Lords of Waterdeep, which a lot of people leave out of the game in a house rule because they don’t like negative interaction (the same happens in Terraforming Mars sometimes).

I’m not sure what I think of games that add a dose of “take-that” just to be able to say “See? We have interaction!”

But I also don’t take them out of the game.

However, that’s another post (which I’ve already written and linked to above!)

I love it when games try to soften the “take-that” elements, like in Wingspan where at least one of the expansions added a few birds (not many!) whose power is essentially “take a food from another player. They get to then take a food from the birdfeeder.”

Sure, maybe there’s a seed in the birdfeeder so it didn’t matter that you took my seed. But maybe there’s not and I really needed that seed to play the Gannet (the seeds prevent them from wetting their nests, I’m sure).

You blocked me, you bastard!

I hate you.

But seriously, is it really “take-that” if you can get a benefit too?

What was I saying? (Sorry, it’s Friday and…well, we’re in a bar).

Oh yeah, how much player interaction do you like?

Some people love the direct conflict kind of interaction (of course any wargamer does).

Other people like to kind of do their own thing. Maybe they’re competing for worker spaces, or cards, or maybe there’s no competition at all.

Maybe they just want to leisurely draw!

After this many words, I suppose I should give you my thoughts, shouldn’t I?

It depends.

Ha! You should have seen that coming.

I do like direct conflict games. Hell, I’m getting into wargaming more and more. My favourite game is 1960: The Making of a President, which is a direct competition between two players.

However, I do like worker placement games where the interaction is minimal as well.

I’m not a huge roll & write fan, though I will play them. There’s definitely not much, if any, interaction in those (maybe in the “Clever” games, but only because other players get to use your leftover dice, meaning they may not get what they want from your turn).

I don’t mind take-that cards at all. I love Mandatory Quests in Waterdeep.

I would never dream of taking them out.

I’ll never turn down a game because I am in the mood for more or less conflict.

That’s me!

Full of it…I mean multitudes.

Full of multitudes.

Anyway, let me know what you think.

Do you like conflict? Do you like solitaire?

Are you in between?

And that’s ok if you are!

(Do I really need to say that I’m joking about the Gannet, and I’m not even sure the Gannet is in Wingspan: the European Expansion and if it is, that it requires a seed to play? Good, I hope not)

This post brought to you by Smirnoff Root Beer Float Vodka (RIP), the number 42, and the letter Ÿ