After playing 18CZ (again!), I was trying to pin down why I thought it was “OK” and not “Great.” Why does 1822 PNW make me want to get it back to the table, while CZ is merely a “Yeah, sure.” (I mean it’s still a positive feeling, but more “indifferent plus” than “suggest” or “enthusiastic“) and I think this comes down to one thing that I have touched upon a few times over the years, but bears repeating.

Entanglement — The (Not So) Secret Sauce

By their nature 18xx games are more entangled than most business games. In typical games, each player controls their own (single) corporation. What is good for the company is good for the player, and vice versa. In 18xx, a player can juggle multiple (competing) interests; it can be great to trash a company under your control (shifting its assets to a ‘better’ company).

This brings up the Principal-Agent Problem , but also Implicit Collusion because there might be other shareholders and they will want to know if the company is going to pay out or with-hold, and if it will be headed for a glorious future or Chapter 11.

It can be impossible to state the “right” play is for a company merely by looking at the board. You need to understand the stock split dynamics. Does the president own 60% (and 40% is in the IPO/Bank). Or is it a 40%/30%/30% (in a three player game). Treating those situations identically is a recipe for disaster.

So — The board position is entangled with the players’ stakes. That’s the “hook” of 18xx.

(Acquire also does this, and is rightly acknowledged as one of the greatest games of last century¹. Its board play is much simpler, the stock entanglement does the heavy lifting. In Chicago Express the entire game play revolves around implicit collusion — getting the incentives right so that others make plays to your benefit)

Of course there are levels of entanglement, and ripples to the chaos.

How many companies (and which ones) will open?

If the same companies open in the same order every game, the game will likely start to feel the same (although various splits of minors still have interest)². Varying how many companies (and which) provides variety because the “train rush” is triggered by that one additional company operating. In many games, there might be “semi-permanent” trains. If X companies open, they last. The X+1st company opens and they rust.

Some games (like the ’22 family) randomize the order that some companies show up in, this forces each play into a new line but also means that the number of viable companies might change, which has implications on the train rush.

More subtlety, 1846 achieves the same effect by having some dubious companies that frankly aren’t great. Is it worthwhile to open a second company? Uh, sometimes. For a long time the fact’ that the game’46 had mediocre companies puzzled me, but borderline companies are a ticking time bomb. If the incentives are right, someone will open them just to watch the world burn trains rust. The fact that their ROI isn’t great is borderline.

Thinking about this with 18CZ; I suspect that it does do better at this that I thought … but three players is not its sweet spot³. The train limit is a bit too generous at that count (at least in our meta). Again compare this against ’46, where the number of companies (and trains) varies based on player count to keep things tight.

How entangled is the board?

The game board should be small enough so that each company’s track plays have ripple effects.

The game that best exemplifies this is, naturally, Go. There are “joseki” — opening lines that theoritically should provide roughly equal chances for either side … in that particular corner. Professional players spend an inordinate amount of time on the first 20-30 moves (out of 150-250 ish) because the corners influence each other and the josekis will combine. Joseki A (in the NW corner) may be great if Joseki B is in the NE corner, but terrible if Joseki C is in the NE corner.

So you want to leave things in flux and arrange joseki(s) that work together in your favor.⁴

In our last few games of CZ, Eastern Side of the Board never impacted the Western Side … everyone met up at Prague, which held enough token slots that most companies could get through, and the ones that didn’t at the end had their runs on the appropriate side. Sure, there was jockeying between companies on each side, but the corners never impacted each other. (Again, might be a problem that is solved at more players).

Which is not to demand that “every company cares about every other company,” but there should be some tension and chokepoints; companies fighting to place track or station tiles. For example, ’46 has Chicago (and Toledo, and Indianapolis). PNW has Seattle and Portland literally fighting over growth.

CZ (at least with three) felt like it had walled off suburbs. My branch in the SE eventually merged with the NW companies (and the Northerner), but it was a minor event. Like finding a run worth an extra few dollars in share. A rounding error, not a bomb.

(1862 almost achieves “every company really cares about every other company”; because of merger opportunities but also because the board is so tight and different company charters will have very different track preferences).

And even companies far apart and destined to ne’er meet; they might compete over tiles. Every 18xx player knows the sinking feeling when you discover a needed tile is missing.⁵⁶

What doesn’t interest me

Hunting out the extra dollar and operations minutiae all the time. (Hunting out extra money in the opening is the entire point of compound interest). Yes, sometimes that extra dollar really matters. A few bucks might make the difference between buying another certificate. In that case, the extra few dollars is a “bomb⁷” (a big deal).

Token wars, snatching up the right train, ownership battles, dumping companies … those are always bombs. If the few extra dollars is a bomb only 1% of the time, it can be simplified away. But I’ve learned that in order to entangle the board (and stock) you have to have the possibility of not entangling it. Sometimes even great games can have a relatively dull run.

There are other things that don’t interest me. (I’m no longer fond of the ’30 family’s script of “first company low, second company saves first.” Nothing wrong with that play … but I’ve seen it enough). But in general I’m looking for a reason to play an 18xx title and most of them give me plenty.

1. The BGG HoF got some things wrong, but they got that right. ︎
2. I owned 1835 back in …. ’92 or ’93, but never got to try it. I know it has its defenders and variants…. ︎
3. After writing this, I went and checked BGG and 4p is listed as best with 3p and 6p having the lowest recommended numbers. ︎
4. I don’t play Go well enough to know how to do this; but I played enough to know this is true. See the proverb “Memorizing Joseki loses two stones.” ︎
5. Yes, its a horribly gamey thing …. why should the fact that some company hundreds of miles away built a branch mean you can’t? Well, just imagine that they got a compliant politician to hose you. ︎
6. Also, I swear that 1846 is influenced by Coriolis rotation of the earth, because tiles that are mirror images with 4 each will have one set empty and the other set untouched. ︎
7. For those readers unfamiliar with the term, I am using the meaning of “bomb” from a Jonathon DeGann Article, which is still available on the Wayback machine. ︎

Whenever I start up Slay the Spire (via Steam) I’m reminded that there is a Slay the Spire boardgame on Kickstarter. I see posts for it on r/slaythespire. I’ve played 4,000 hours of Slay the Spire, it’s fair to say I like it. I own ~200 boardgames (and have bought and sold ~5x that). So, automatic pledge, right?

Nope.

Apart from my natural reticence with Kickstarter, or the fact that tie-in games are usually bad, there is the simple fact that this game crosses mediums (which, come to think of it, tie-in games automatically do). I think I’ve danced around this issue before, but I’ve also been playing a bunch of Ozymandias (alternating that and StS), and it cemented some of my thoughts on this, so I felt like it might be interesting to discuss.

Lets assume, arguendo, that the Slay the Spire board game developers are honest, competent, hard working and have a ton of board game experience. (For all I know this is true, but that is certainly not the case on many Kickstarter projects). It doesn’t really matter: My goals with StS and boardgames are different.

Slay the Spire is a small exercise in optimization and risk management. Certainly many Eurogames (particularly J.A.S.E. games) exemplify that. So let’s even grant that they can turn this into a decent board game. But when I’m playing Slay the Spire (in steam), I’m getting a fundamentally solitaire experience at my own pace. I normally don’t play too carefully, and many average ~20 minutes (playing at A20, Act I is ~10 minutes, Act II is ~20 and III/IV is ~30-40). I can play slower to improve my win rate, but StS is essentially “Television” for me. Its a (mostly) mindless few hours instead of watching netflix. It’s not a competitive experience, and its not a particularly social experience.

Board games are primarily competitive and social, for me. They are relaxing, but not in the same category of “Television/Netflix.” I have different motiviations between boardgames and computer games, so even a perfect replica of Slay the Spire in board game format might bomb for me.

But what is lost in the board game format of StS (I’m assuming, not having followed it closely):

First, All the computer moderation. Slay the Spire is a deckbuilder (to be sure) but also a roguelike, and part of the joy is having 10+ modifications (via relics). But I don’t have to do anything, I can just click and play, and its handled. In a boardgame, these get overwhelming. In a competitive board game, losing because I forgot Player B has Relic Q (when each of my opponents has ~5 relics)? Ugh. (I now see that the Slay the Spire is a co-op, but it would be the same thing if we lost because we lost track of some modifier….)

A super-fiddly game is made better by an automated moderator that plays the fiddle.

Even Ozymandias (which is basically a board game) takes full advantage of the computer to handle persnickety math, shows you numerical differences in your choices and smooths things out. Calculating and resolving all the battles in 5 seconds instead of minutes of dice rolling, with no mistakes. (It could be done faster, but the computer gives time to see it).

Second, downtime. In the computer games, I take as long or as little time as I want. I get a 100% return on my time. In Slay the Spire or (theoretical) Ozymandias board game, I have downtime. Even if they aren’t fixed fun games (where the fun is divided up between players) strictly speaking, there’s some loss. Ozymandias would take a huge hit unless it managed to do a simultaneous selection.

None of that is to say that these games might not work, but the switching between mediums might mean they work in a way that is very different than what made them addictive as a computer game. (The same way the Sandman, for example, had to rework the 24/7 episode (the one in the diner) because what works in a 20 page comic you can read in 5 minutes does not work as an hour of television).

I suspect the most likely result of the Slay the Spire boardgame will be something like Thunderstone … not a bad game, but one of those games you play a few times and move on from. (Again, that’s not a knock. In the past if I got 5 plays from a board game, I considered that a reasonable purchase, but my standards are higher now).

Of course, it is certainly possible that the mold the developers are aiming for is more Gloomhaven campaign, or an epic four hour adventure. All those would be fine; but again a big change from a pringles like solitaire where I just play after dinner until I’m bored or tired.

I would certainly play the Slay the Spire Boardgame … it might be that what they end up with is satisfying as a board game. But if that is the case, it will scratch a very different itch than the computer game. And given how many board games I have, that’s not an itch I need felt the need to back.

Update — If you are new here from r/slaythespire, I have a number of StS related posts.

• Too Many Words about StS Strategy (Part I and Part II)
• Applying a Psychology Training to Improve at StS and Results

(Further thoughts on Across the Obelisk that weren’t in my review).

Is it literally impossible to win Across the Obelisk on your first play? (Or, more realistically, can an experienced player start a new campaign with no XP and win?) I suspect a great player could, but apart from not having unlocked various cards, the characters are literally weaker. After each (failed) run I’ve got XP that I can spend to boost characters. More damage, more HP, more resistances. An extra mana on the first turn (and mana is saved). And I just unlocked a new equipment type (pets).

Hades really leaned on this, but in Hades it made sense. When you “died”, you were simple returned to the Hell you were trying to escape. You were still you. You retained your knowledge and skills! Slay the Spire doesn’t really have meta-scaling. You have your knowledge (and the in game events do imply you are being reincarnated with some of it), but you start each run with the same deck and one random gift. It’s like Nethack in that the only scaling is that you’ve gotten better at the game.

Old school arcade games were difficult because the designer didn’t want people to play too long on a quarter, but didn’t want game over to be a few seconds. Perhaps the new dynamic is “I want people to feel like they are getting better, even if they aren’t.”

Just a thought.