Friday Night Shots – Catch Up Mechanisms

It’s the last Friday before Christmas and all through the malls, too many creatures were stirring, so much so that I would rather carve Shem Phillips’ initials into my hand with a penknife than go shopping.

I think that’s how that old Christmas poem goes.

I could be a bit off.

Anyway, welcome back to the bar!

I’m glad you decided to get cozy and warm here, having some libations (maybe not alcoholic) and discussing some weird boardgame topic with me.

Let me go downstairs and get the good stuff.

Or maybe I’ll send my intern.

The jukebox is broken, so nothing to turn off!

I may have to catch up with the repair company in the new year…

Hey, that reminds me of tonight’s topic.

Catch up mechanisms!

In this week’s Shadow Kingdoms of Valeria review, I mentioned how it was really easy to get behind early and not be in the running to win the game.

The bigger problem with that is, of course, that there aren’t really multiple avenues to winning, but since there is only one avenue, falling behind can be a killer.

The term “catch up mechanism” has become very common in boardgames because of this kind of thing, so much so that one of the biggest “games that need a catch up mechanism” (Food Chain Magnate) actually came out with an expansion called “The Ketchup Mechanism and Other Ideas“.

Does it actually provide a catch up mechanism? Or are they making fun of their detractors?

I don’t know, since there’s no way I’m playing that game.

When they’re playing a game, many people don’t like that feeling of not having a chance to win, that they’re out of the game and why bother to keep playing?

Splotter (publishers of Food Chain Magnate) is very famous for saying “if you can’t lose on the first turn, why have a first turn?”

And obviously that has some fans, since the game is #38 on Boardgame Geek.

Other people get bored and depressed when they’re obviously out of a game near the beginning.

That’s why my friend Cal, when he teaches you a game, chooses a strategy where it looks like you’re winning until on Turn 5 he gets 150 points and not only passes you but laps you on the score track.

I’m assuming that’s why…I haven’t actually asked.

But you feel good! You feel like you’re winning!

You only feel crushed at the end!

Anyway, other games do have catch up mechanisms, or just ways to kind of aid the players who are behind to maybe give them a step up.

They may not bring total parity to the game, but I don’t think anybody wants that.

I think most people just want to be given a chance.

What they do with it is up to them.

For example, The Networks has five TV seasons (rounds).

Each season, turn order is based on scoring, from last to first.

If you’re first, you are going last this season!

That gives those players who are behind to pick up a prime show or star or whatever.

That’s great, because while it gives them the chance, they have to make the best decision they can or they’ll stay in last.

In Power Grid, player order is determined by the number of cities you are able to power with your power plants.

While power plant auctions are initiated in player order, the purchasing of resources and the placing of new houses (i.e. choosing cities that you want to be able to power) is done in reverse player order.

So if you’re last, you will get the cheaper resources and possibly be able to expand a bit faster (or at least more cheaply) than those ahead of you.

It’s still very possible to fall behind, but there is a mechanism that can give you a bit of a boost.

Then there’s Isle of Skye, which has a pretty basic mechanism for this.

Each round, whoever is behind on points gets more money depending on how many players are ahead of them!

Will that help?

Maybe…

Some people say that the best way to not fall behind so quickly is to play better.

I have some sympathy for that, though it depends on how long the game is.

I actually enjoy the DC Comics Deckbuilding Game, at least to some extent.

It has a terrible runaway leader problem.

If a player has defeated multiple Super-Villains, they’re going to be a lot more powerful in a sort of cascading effect.

However, the game is 45 minutes, if that.

Similarly, both Twilight Struggle and the lunchtime version, Twilight Struggle: Red Sea have times where you can just be shut out of having any chance. Your opponent has control of too many countries and it takes multiple Ops points to place influence in a country that’s already controlled.

However, the latter game is 30-45 minutes, so I don’t really mind as much.

Would I mind it in Twilight Struggle?

I’m not sure. I would like to actually play it (not on the app) just to see.

The other option, if not a catch up mechanism (which some people actually say is more of a snowballing leader problem), is to make the game fun enough that you still feel like you are accomplishing something even though you know you’re not going to win.

Maybe you’re going for second place, or maybe you just want to get as many points as possible.

You have played the game before and you just want to see how you can do because you know this time, you screwed up.

I find myself in that situation quite a lot (more often than I would like).

If the game is enjoyable, it won’t affect how I feel while playing it. I will just do what I can and try again next time.

What are your thoughts on catch up mechanisms?

Do you agree with Splotter, or do you think a good game needs one? Or at least some benefit for those who are lagging behind, even if it doesn’t draw the leader back to the middle of the pack?

Let me know in the comments.

This post brought to you Egan’s Irish Whiskey, the number 38, and the letters T & S