In a lot of games, you are on a team working to achieve a common goal. Being on a leadership team is a very similar experience. Everyone on both teams is usually assigned to a role and given specific tasks to complete. In games players typically have special abilities to help fulfill their role. On a real-life team people have real life skills that they excel in, making them better in certain positions. In both scenarios team members can help and support each other as needed.
Leadership and games also both include a lot of management. In many games you must manage what resources you have to avoid running out and accomplish goals within a time limit. As a leader you often are scheduling dates for events and keeping up with deadlines. Leaders also manage funds, deciding what to purchase or not, much like the resource management in games. Giving people orders and keeping them happy are goals that exist both in some games and for real leaders.
Another similarity between leadership and games is that you get better at them the more you practice. As you play games more you level up and learn better strategies to grow stronger. As a leader you must have practical experience leading to get better. Much like any other skill leadership can be improved with time and effort. So don’t avoid being a leader just because you think you’re bad at it. No one starts out as the perfect leader and you’ll never have a chance to improve if you don’t start.
On Tuesday, February 15th, I attended a gaming event here on campus, specifically one of the Strategy Gaming Club’s (SGC) meetings. SGC is a student organization that provides a time and place for students to play all sorts of tabletop games, as well providing a wide selection of these games at each Sunday and Tuesday meeting. Additionally, SGC also has a group of members that have been hosting sessions of the Warhammer series of games, as well as miniatures for players to use with the games on Wednesdays. Recently though, these Wednesday meetings have been taking place alongside the Tuesday meetings, allowing those who usually could not come to the Wednesday meetings to play various Warhammer games during the Tuesday meetings instead.
SGC Tuesday meetings allow the attendants to play whatever tabletop games they want to, assuming that the organization owns those games and have brought the games with them to this meeting. Due to the fact these games could require any amount of space, the organization itself does not perform any setup of the room themselves beyond bringing the tabletop games, instead allowing the members to break up the large rectangle of tables themselves in order to create the space that they need for their chosen tabletop games. As a result, the only part of the room left in its initial state is often the far end of the tables, which are where the games not being played are located. However, this more hands-on setup is typically not a problem, as all of the attendees will often move the tables back into their initial place once they are done playing games, and the table is no longer in use.
Of course, you will need to get a group of players together for most of these tabletop games, but the other attendees of these meetings are usually more than willing to arrange groups to play larger games or join you for a game you would like to play. In many cases you might be able to play multiple different tabletop games in one meeting, but at this particular meeting I was only able to fit one game in, though I enjoyed it quite a lot. I was only able to play this game due to the fact that SGC was able to move some of its Warhammer content over to the Tuesday meetings.
Warhammer and it’s various games are something that I’ve been interested in for quite some time now, but I have never been able to experience them myself due to the large cost of building an army of miniatures and lacking any time to attend SGC’s Wednesday meetings. As such, now that Warhammer is being hosted during the Tuesday meetings, I jumped at the chance to finally play these games myself. During this meeting specifically, I played Warhammer Quest: Blackstone Fortress, a Campaign Dungeon-Crawler game set in the Warhammer 40k universe, along with three other players.
In Warhammer Quest: Blackstone Fortress (Blackstone), you play as a group of explorers searching for relics and riches within the depths of an ancient space-faring fortress. These expeditions into the fortress take place in two distinct phases, the exploration phase and the facility phase. In the exploration phase, the players draw a card from the exploration deck, which determines what they will find in this area of the fortress. In our session, we only drew Combat cards from this deck, but other areas of the fortress will feature other challenges. Combat encounters in particular are quite complex, as they require the players to balance not only their own actions, but also their position in initiative, the group pool of Destiny Dice for additional actions and the potential actions that their enemies may take based on the roll of a twenty-sided die. After each exploration phase, the players have the option to exit the Fortress and enter the facility phase, where they can use their character’s ships to perform various actions and purchase items using the loot they have gathered, though each player can only visit one ship. From this point the players can either save their characters by placing their character cards and loot in their special card sleeve and stop for the time being or reenter the Fortress.
As Blackstone is a Campaign game, my group is still quite far from finishing it, but I had quite a lot of fun with the combat encounters that we were able to play through. However, I do not think that the fun I felt was purely attributed to the game, but to the people I was playing with as well. For one thing, one of the players in this group is actually someone that I have known since my first semester here at Miami, and that I would consider a good friend. And the two other players, even if we only recently met, were still more than willing to discuss the things they enjoy and just generally have a good time while at the meeting. This general feeling of openness and acceptance is not just something that applies to this particular meeting, as it is something that I have found in every meeting of SGC that I have attended.
I believe that it is because of this open and accepting feeling that I enjoy my time with SGC so much, both this meeting and any other. No matter what group of people I choose to play with, or what game we are playing, I enjoy my time while I am there. The community their organization has built is just so accepting and so committed to having fun that it seems to be hard not to have fun while playing tabletop games with them. Not only that, but if the game you are playing happens to be a game that you are unfamiliar with, and someone else is very familiar with, the more experienced players will typically jump at the opportunity to share something that they love with someone new. This exact scenario is what happened during the above meeting, as while I am still relatively new to the people that play Warhammer at SGC’s meetings, they were very excited to help teach me the games that they enjoy so much.
As I have expressed throughout this reflection, I have always been able to enjoy my time spent at SGC, and the meeting on February 15th was simply an example of just why that is. The community that the Strategy Gaming Club’s officers have been able to build over their time is just simply such a welcoming and open one. As a result the entire organization just has a friendly and accepting atmosphere that makes it clear that having fun and meeting new people should be the number one priority, and that the tabletop games available are simply a way to meet those people and build those friendships. Even after all of this time, there are still new people in the organization to meet, and new games to play, and so the environment that SGC provides will always be appreciated.
This week, we finished up our playthroughs of Fiasco! Picking up right where we left off after the Tilt, players ran through Act 2 and the Aftermath of their games. In the case of my group, we finally reached that climactic bank heist that had been built up all of Act 1 and concluded with a gun fight in the wild west, many dead, and everybody suffering just a little. It was a great time. Somehow, my character had the happiest ending because he took a bullet to the gut early on and managed to avoid the deadly final shootout that left all but one other player dead. Unfortunately, that other player was the infamous bounty hunter my character swore revenge on many years prior, so it wasn’t a “happy” ending.
The hardest part of Act 2 for me was accepting failure. The goal of the game is, of course, to come up with schemes that fail spectacularly. However, in the moment while playing the game, everyone is trying to achieve some degree of success and can bring the game slightly to a halt. A few examples from my game come to mind, but I’ll only talk about one. One player, whose character was in the spotlight, was trying to convinced another player’s character to come outside and follow him to the bank. He’d received a white die, signaling a positive outcome, but the scene ended with the second character fleeing out the back window and getting away. It stuck out to me as a case of going against the outcome die for the first player because the second player did not want to fail. Improvising involves a rule-of-thumb dubbed “yes, and…”, where people accept what is being done and continue with what has been set up. Playing Fiasco, it was really hard to say, “Yes, I will fail, and this is how it happens.”
One tie to leadership that Fiasco demonstrates well is encouraging healthy competition. Fiasco involves so much betrayal and player-against-player storytelling, but at the end of the day, it is a roleplaying game and everyone is there to have fun. I think it does really well encouraging people to go ahead with their plans, not take what others do too personally, and having an overall fun time regardless of what happens. Applying this to the real world, minor competition within a group can be beneficial because it pushes everyone involved to do better in their endeavors. As a leader, it is important to make sure, despite any rivalries, that everyone on all sides knows it is in good fun.
Having played through the second half of Fiasco, I would like to slightly adjust that kinds of people I previously said would enjoy the game. People who are comfortable improvising or don’t mind giving improv a try would enjoy playing the game. In addition to that, anybody who plays games to win and takes experiences that happen in games personally should steer away from Fiasco. Furthermore, anybody who would *make* a playthrough of Fiasco personal for other players should stay away. For those reasons, I can see Fiasco being enjoyed by groups of friends who are fine with giving each other grief and don’t mind being ridiculous with each other.
Within the realm of tabletop gaming, role-playing games can be one of the most intimidating to players. Players either are given or create a character then assume the role of that character in personality, goals, dialogue, and so on. This Game of the Week, Fiasco, tasks 3 to 5 players with creating a web of relationships, needs, objects, and locations before setting them loose to act out scenes of criminal activity, low impulse control, and shenanigans. Depending on the playset, these characters can be from a variety of settings and backgrounds, but the majority of the time, they are terrible, terrible people making equally terrible decisions.
The hardest part about playing Fiasco was certainly the improvising. The game gives vague prompts and general details about the characters, relying on player creativity to figure out what that means for their characters and what they want to do or achieve. Scenes are thought up on the spot and acted out between the players immediately, with the only direction given to them either a white die signaling a good outcome or a black die signaling a bad outcome. Fortunately, once the ball gets rolling and the initial 2 or 3 scenes are completed, the direction of the story becomes more clear and everybody has a better grasp on who they are playing as and what they should do. At my table, there was one player who started the game not knowing what they should be doing or how to play the game. However, by the final scene of Act 1, they had masterminded a plot to rob a bank, hired my character to help them, then threw me under the bus to the bank’s treasurer to play both sides of the conflict and always come out on top. I didn’t even care that I was being used as a scapegoat because it was such a glorious move.
One very important aspect to leadership that can be seen through Fiasco is that everybody in a group should be equally comfortable and equally involved. The characters in the game are not good people who can get into any scenario that the players think up. Some situations, however, might be really uncomfortable or triggering to players. It is very important- and the rules explicitly say to take a break and discuss the direction of the story -to check in with everybody at the beginning and frequently throughout that there are not any topics or themes that are ruining their fun. In addition, especially with a roleplaying game, some players (particularly those with more experience) may become more prominent while other players are pushed to the side. A couple designs I really appreciate from Fiasco include how each scene has a different character that is explicitly the focus of the scene, each player-character has an equal amount of scenes, and the circle of relationships and details tie everyone together because that allows everybody to have an “in” that allows them to get involved in the story and remain relevant. Thinking about this in terms of leadership, everybody in a group needs to be relevant and feel that they are relevant, and it is a leader’s responsibilities to make that happen.
Fiasco is meant to be played by people looking to act out a ridiculous story together. People who appreciate games for their rules and mechanics, or people who get frustrated when they can’t pause to think and must improvise, should probably find a different game to play. Personally, I have some friends I’ve met in various theatre programs that would find Fiasco really fun. They have experience thinking on their feet, getting into character, and creating a fun story together. However, I recommend that anybody who likes being creative, whether you are a professional actor or somebody with zero improv experience, give Fiasco a try.
I love cooperative games. Even within the genre “cooperative”, there is so much variety in games. There may be players working in a team against other players as in Codenames or all of the players working together against the game itself as in Pandemic. However, as is the case for this Game of the Week, there is no enemy or clear adversary. In Mysterium, the challenge lies in communication — or lack thereof. One player acts as the Ghost, trying to get a team of Psychics to correctly deduce combinations of suspects, locations, and weapons to solve their murder. The challenge? The Ghost can make no sounds, give no facial expressions nor gestures, and must only communicate to the Psychics using a limited supply of cards beautifully illustrated with abstract images. It is up to the Psychics to figure out what messages the Ghost is trying to convey with these cards to solve the crime.
During class, I played the role of the Ghost, and I can say with confidence that having such limited communication with your teammates makes it really difficult to win Mysterium. That is also illustrated by the fact that there was a 0% win rate in class among the 3 groups. The Psychics are dependent on the Ghost giving them clues about the sets of suspects-locations-weapons, but the art on those clue cards are so colorful and detailed! Having to match the 7 clues in my hand to the 5 cards that the 5 Psychics had to guess while also paying attention to the other 6 cards I had the steer the Psychics away from… Creating a connection between the clues and the cards was hard enough. Knowing the Psychics had to figure out what my thought processes were for each clue made me squirm in my seat and hide behind my screen for fear of giving away too much information with my reactions. I think the hardest part of the game for me was biting my tongue while listening to the Psychics discuss what their answers should be. I wanted desperately to praise the players who understood my line of thinking, warn the players who got attached to the wrong details, and hint to one side of the table to look at the clues I’d given out to the other side.
When thinking about this game in terms of leadership, my mind keeps coming back to all of the things I couldn’t do as the Ghost. I couldn’t encourage my players for doing a good job. I couldn’t explain my thinking with misinterpreted clues. I remember watching in horror as one of my players guessed literally every other suspect than the one I wanted him to pick because I couldn’t say, “Let’s forget that last clue I gave you because I definitely gave you the wrong idea with it.” Playing a game with no communication really goes to show how important communication is for succeeding. Being able to clear up confusion verbally would have made the game trivial, yes, but applying this game to the real world, open discussion and being able to clear up previous mistakes is so very, very important.
I think Mysterium is a fantastic game. I recommend, however, to play it with family or a group of close friends first. Anybody who loves a game of Charades, loves beautiful art and aesthetics, and doesn’t mind waiting patiently for the Ghost to set-up or disperse clues would love this game. I suggest to play with a group of people you know very well first as an “easy mode” introduction to the game. You’ll know the thought processes of family and friends, and can get a handle on the rules of the game. Then, give it a try with strangers or acquaintances for an added challenge.
This past week, our class got together to play a session of Ultimate Werewolf, a hidden role game where the players are divided into two teams, the Villagers and the Werewolves. However, as it is a hidden role game, none of these allegiances or roles are known from the beginning of the game, and this plays into what I personally believe was the most difficult part of the game, the beginning. Since no one had been eliminated yet, and no one’s role had been revealed, we had no information to go off of before eliminating our first player. As such, the discussions in the game’s early rounds often took very long to start, and had very little direction. However, as the game progressed and more information was revealed, discussions became easier to start and had a clearer direction to go off of.
As for the session as a whole, I was given the role of the Seer at the beginning of the game, a role that is very powerful as they can determine which players are villagers and which are werewolves. As such, it was very concerning to me for the Villager team when the Werewolves managed to eliminate me in one of the earlier nights. My concern only grew as the game progressed, and the Apprentice Seer revealed themselves in an attempt to gain trust, an attempt that was then turned around entirely by the Sorceress pretending to be the Seer. After that point, things appeared very bleak for the villagers as they continued to lose more of their ranks, even if they had eliminated the Sorceress, until toward the end of the game when the Wolf Cub and one of the Werewolves had been eliminated. During the final round, the Hunter was chosen as the person the village was going to kill, and as their final act they chose one the last remaining Werewolf as the person they wanted to take out with them, which allowed the villagers to win the game! Overall, while I certainly did not enjoy being eliminated as early as I was, the game as a whole was entertaining, and it was interesting to see what conclusions people came to as the game progressed.
However, just what ties does Ultimate Werewolf have to leadership? I think that the ties here can be seen in just how discussions functioned, as the discussions tended to have one person in particular who “led” them, and this leader changed each round. This leader may have simply been the first person to speak up, it may have been the person who discussed possible strategies the villagers could use, or it may have been the player that had the most compelling reason for eliminating someone. No matter the situation that led to them becoming the leader though, doing so appeared to come with some risk, as they were often targeted by other villagers or by the Werewolves. Not only that, but choosing someone to eliminate is a risk itself, as eliminating the wrong person will shift the target that you placed on them over to yourself instead. I feel that this is an interesting parallel to leadership in the real world, as part of being a good leader involves taking risks, as only with those risks do you get closer to your goal. However, if those risks are not managed well, they may cause more harm than good.
Alongside this idea of risks and leadership though, I would also like to discuss my own play style for this game, or at the very least my plans for it as I was unfortunately eliminated rather early on. I was not planning on taking many risks unless I could be certain that they would lead to a positive outcome for the team. This was partly because of my role as the Seer, a role that I felt was very powerful since it could identify Werewolves with no doubts. As such, I did not want to draw too much attention to myself during the discussions unless I knew whether a target that was being discussed was a Villager or a Werewolf, and would then attempt to draw the discussion away from that person or toward them while trying not to draw too much attention to myself. Though, while I did not want to draw too much attention to myself as the Seer, this is actually quite similar to my usual level of risk taking. I am usually quite worried about taking a risk unless I am certain that the potential rewards are worth it.
Overall, I certainly did enjoy our session of Ultimate Werewolf despite being eliminated rather early on, as even watching Social Deduction games like this can be quite fun. Not only was it fun though, it also revealed just inseparable risk-taking and leadership are, as being a leader both involves making risky decisions and drawing attention to yourself as a result.
While I personally have played video games far more than I’ve played board games, I certainly still do enjoy board and tabletop games. As such, I was interested to see just how my results for Quantic Foundry’s Test, a test that analyses my motivations for playing board games, might compare to my interests when playing video games. Alongside this, I was also interested in whether the results of this test would match the kind of gamer that I personally think I am when it comes to board games, or if there would be some discrepancy between the kind of board game player I personally believe I am and the kind of board game player the test believes I am.
Quantic Foundry’s Test analyzed my motivations for playing board games based upon four main categories, Conflict, Strategy, Immersion and Social Fun. To begin this analysis, I would like to take a look at my score for Strategy specifically, and its subcategory: Discovery. For the Strategy category as a whole, I scored a 66%, but for the Discovery subcategory I only scored a 15%. At first glance, this seemed very odd to me, as I initially thought that this score was referring to games where discovering something was a main element of its enjoyment. When it comes to the video games I play, I very much enjoy games with large worlds to explore, such as The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild or Hollow Knight, as finding every nook and cranny of a world is very rewarding to me. However, as I continued reading my results I realized that this was not referring to my interest in an aspect of a game, but rather my interest in seeking out new games to play. As such, I believe this low Discovery score actually fits me quite well when it comes to board games, as I have a tendency to return to games that I have played before or share games I’ve enjoyed with others rather than searching for new board games to play. That is not to say that I will not try new board games at all, as just recently I played a deckbuilder game called Dominion for the first time, but when given the option I have noticed that I gravitate more towards games that I am already familiar with.
However, my Discovery score is not the only score that I am interested in analyzing, as I believe that my score for Conflict, and its subcategory Social Manipulation are quite interesting as well. For my Conflict score, I received a 65%, while for Social Manipulation I received a 21%. Personally, this makes sense to me, as I consider myself quite bad when it comes to games that involve bluffs or deceit. It’s not that I don’t enjoy them, as games like Werewolf and Coup are still quite enjoyable, but I often find myself losing relatively early on as I simply do not have the skills needed to hide my intentions or detect other’s hidden intentions. The relatively high Conflict score also makes sense to me, as I find that it can be hard to be motivated in a game you are losing if there is no real way to affect the other players. If one player has simply been dealt a better hand, or just has generally more experience with the game, there needs to be some way to fight against that advantage to make the game enjoyable to the other players, which to me means that some form of direct conflict in board games is needed if the game is not a cooperative effort.
Overall, I feel that Quantic Foundry’s test has done a good job of revealing just what interests me in board games, and possibly even in video games as well. While discovering new board games to play may not be as important to me as having board games that I enjoy playing, games that themselves revolve around discovering new and interesting things in their worlds are still quite interesting to me. Alongside this, my relative lack of skill in deceit and bluffing tends to push me away from social manipulation games, even though I do find that conflict is an important part of board games. And while I did not specifically touch on them, I do find that my scores for Social Fun and Immersion make sense as well, as having fun is ultimately the goal when playing a board game, and a game’s art and world alone.
This week in Tabletop Leadership, we finished our D&D session. In this session, the people who have never played D&D before got better because we learned a lot from the first session. The hardest part about this game is the decisions you have to make. My health was really low this week, so I was afraid to do anything aggressive. We even had disagreements on what to do next, so we had to work together as a group to decide what is best.
The game has ties to leadership because there are a lot of decisions you have to make. Leaders have to constantly make tough decisions and use their resources. I had low health in this session so I had to be mindful of that when deciding what to do with an enemy. I think my friend Canon would enjoy this game because he is competitive and likes to think things through. In D&D, he would think ahead a lot in order to make the best decision on what to do. He would act as a leader and make sure the group benefits from every choice.
I really enjoyed my time playing D&D. It wasn’t as tough as I thought it was going to be. I like the story aspect and I would compare it to playing a role playing video game. My favorite thing about the game is that you can make every session completely different. I would want to make my character completely different next time so that I can do all new things. There is nothing I dislike about the game because our session went so well and the experienced people did a good job helping those of us who have never played.
Leadership has many
different characteristics involved. There is not a simple definition of
leadership because it can take a wide range of forms. However, there are
several qualities that are consistently important for a leader. Leaders usually
have a sense of authority. They control and manage groups or situations. Possibly
the most important quality in a leader is that they influence others. All of these
qualities are also important in a game. That is why leadership is like a game.
Authority is very common in leadership. Leaders often
take initiative within a group or situation and they make sure they get done
what they want to get done. This is the same when playing a game. You are the leader
in a game because you have power when it is your turn and you have to make
decisions. Leaders make decisions on a daily basis and they have to use their
power to take control of circumstances. Authority is important in a game and
for leaders because they you must have it to achieve a certain goal.
Leadership often involves a lot of management and
control. Leaders have to manage all of their resources and run things a certain
way. In a game, there are often several things you have to manage such as
cards, powerups, money, resources, etc. A game requires control over everything
you own, and you have to manage things well in good shape at the end. Just like
in a game, leaders have to manage their resources wisely or things can get out
of control quickly.
Finally, one of the most important qualities in leadership
is influence. Leaders must have influence over others in order for them to
follow the leader and achieve their goals. A game often requires influencing
your opponent into making a mistake. You want your opponent to think they are
doing something right when they are actually doing something wrong. A leader
with good influence is able to convince a group of people to work hard do what
you want them to do. In a game, good influence will cause your opponent to do something
you want them to do which ultimately helps you win. If you can obtain the qualities
of a good leader, you can utilize them to help you succeed in a game.
are many different ways to win games. Some games require luck, others are based
on chance, and some games require skill to out play your opponent. Each one has
its advantages and disadvantages in being part of a game. I will explain in
detail what luck, chance, and skill are exactly and what games you might find
them to be used in.
is defined as the events or circumstances that operate for or against an
individual. In other words, luck is something you cannot control and it either
helps you or hurts you. No amount of skill or knowledge can help affect the
outcome of a play in a game. It is all in the hands of the cards, dice,
spinner, etc. An example of luck in a board game is when you need to roll a 6
on a dice in order to win the game. You roll a 6, and that is considered good
luck. If you roll a 3 and the game makes you go back 10 spaces, that is
considered bad luck.
example of a luck-based board game is Bingo. In this game, different numbers
are arranged on a card and the host draws numbers at random. These numbers are
marked on the card if the player has it on theirs. The first person to get a
full line of marked numbers wins the game. This is luck because all of the
outcomes are chosen at random. The outcomes of bingo depend on if you have the
same number on your card as the one chosen at random. There is no strategy or
skill that goes into Bingo. The player has no control on what numbers are
chosen. Good luck in this game would be getting matches often and in line. Bad
luck in this game would be not getting the same numbers drawn as the ones on
your card. Another example of a luck-based board game is Yahtzee. This is a
game where 5 dice are rolled, and you have to try to get certain patterns of
numbers in each turn. This is luck because the player has no control over the
dice being rolled. There is some skill that goes into this game getting a
Yahtzee, which is 5 matching die, is pure good luck.
biggest advantage for having luck determine the outcomes of board games is the
fact that there is no skill required. More people will be willing to play a
game that requires luck because there is less to learn before playing. Games
that require skill take a few play sessions for an individual to get better and
have a chance to win. Games based on luck give all players an equal chance of winning.
The biggest disadvantage for having luck determine the outcomes of board games
is less complexity. Board games that are more complex are usually played more
than once because there is more to learn. Luck games can get boring quickly
when the winner is random every time. Complex games that require strategy and
skill have more opportunity for players to learn new strategies and play the
game differently each time.
way to win games is from chance. Chance is similar to luck because they both
involve random outcomes. Chance is defined as the objective reality of random
outcomes, while luck is viewed as good or bad fortune. Chance is based on
probability. For example, if you roll 2 dice and you are trying to get a sum
that is 10 or more, the chance of that is 25%. There are 12 possible outcomes
you could get and 3 of them you need. You’ll have a 25% chance of rolling a sum
of 10 or higher.
example of a board game based on chance is Skunk Bingo. This is a game that
uses probability to determine the outcomes of each turn. Players are given data
and analysis on particular issues and they have to make decisions based on the
probabilities derived. Another example of a chance-based board game is the
Horse Racing board game. In this game, players bet on horses and roll dice. The
players discuss with each other on which horse is likely to win the race. This
is probability in action. Games in which you bet are usually based on chance
because you would bet on something that you think is likely to happen.
advantage of having chance determine the outcome of a game is it teaches
probability. Players learn to make decisions based on the probability of their
outcomes being successful. Chance can also serve to give hope to a more inexperienced
player over an experience one. A disadvantage of chance is that it requires
very little effort. This can be frustrating to someone that has put in a lot of
practice and thought to a game. While there is an element of chance in a game, an
individual can succeed with little to no effort.
board games could require skill to succeed. Skill is defined as the ability to
do something well. Skill-based board games require practice and a development of
strategy in order to win. These games tend to be more complex and less suitable
for a party setting.
perfect example of a skill-based board game is Chess. This has been a very
popular game for a long time, and it requires a lot of practice. Any first-time
player would struggle against an experienced player because the experienced
player will know more moves. Chess requires a lot of thinking ahead, you have
to be a move or two ahead of your opponent in order to succeed. As your skill
develops in Chess, you will be able to outsmart your opponent and even predict
what they are going to do next. Another popular skill-based game is Catan.
Catan is all about resource management and negotiating. An experienced player
will know the best ways to allocate their resources and they will know how to
get what they want in negotiations. It takes several plays in order to develop
your own strategies and skill.
biggest advantage of having skill determine the outcome of a game is that it is
the most competitive. Players will have to use their own strategies and
experience to outsmart their opponent. There is no element of luck or chance
giving less skilled players freebies. It is all about multiple skillsets competing.
Skill-based board games can also be more complex. There can be more ways to
strategize or use your skills when everything is in your control. The biggest
disadvantage for skill-based games is that experienced players have an edge. An
inexperienced player would have no chance in beating an experienced player.
This means that less people would want to play the game and it takes more
effort to be successful in the game.