Musings On... Terra (#11)
Tom Vasel: Lately, cooperative games have really hit the spotlight, especially the smash hit Shadows over Camelot. One game that hasn't received quite so much press, however, is the small game Terra. Designed by Bruno Faidutti and produced by Days of Wonder, Terra has a distinct theme (save planet earth!) as well as an unusual mechanic for a cooperative game - one person can win. The fact that a single person can win throws a monkey wrench into the playing of the game, because a selfish person can and will "throw" the game, simply because they believe if they can't win, nobody can. This is a rather dangerous philosophy to allow in a game, in my opinion.Frank Branham: Well, yeah. It means that Terra does not fit into our concept of "game" at all. The rules state that there is either an individual winner, or a group of losers. The game is balanced so that it is fairly difficult to win even if everyone plays the game trying for any player at the table to win. If one or more players actually try to claim an individual win, the difficulty skyrockets and everyone loses. This is a nice political and social statement, but really does create a fundamentally broken game.
Tom Vasel: So Frank, are you saying that political statements have no place in gaming? I would. But regardless, don't you think the game has a value as a sort of litmus test for gaming groups - to find out people's true personalities?
Jeremy Avery: Fundamentally broken. Hmm. I can't agree with those words as they apply to Terra. I agree that something about the game can break, but I disagree that it is broken, especially fundamentally. In fact, the only way Terra can be broken consistently is if all the players are fundamentally selfish; and since all people are fundamentally selfish, let me further say that the players have to play fundamentally selfishly (which is slightly different from being fundamentally selfish, but making an effort to not be that way during the 30 or so minutes it takes to play Terra!) Now assuming those selfish people can restrain their selfishness to some degree, Terra DOES work, and becomes a very interesting game: one that (in my playings at least) does indeed allow for a reasonable shot at "completing" the game even though there is only one winner. How can you not like a game that requires all people to co-operate and yet only has one winner? With the right group (which I seem blessed to have no problem finding) Terra becomes an interesting tactical game where players are deciding which players to help and when, and when to ignore the group and get points for themselves. I find this game brilliant!
Frank Branham: But if only one person plays mostly selfishly, that player will almost surely be the winner, while the other players must sacrifice their positions to support him and not lose. This is why I say the game is "kind of" fundamentally broken. The rules claim there is a single winner, and if players actually try to win and not lose, the game seems to almost always collapse, and all players lose.
I actually believe political statements are entirely appropriate in games. Games are as much a medium as any other art form, and can and should express a lot of different ideas. Colony is another interesting example of a game with a fairly political message. The game is ok, and it carries warnings throughout the game text about the abuses and
horrors of expansionism, and exploit of native peoples.
The message in Terra is to me a little confusing. I think the idea is that nations should work together or very bad things will happen. But the game ignores more complex issues like how to deal with a selfish nation. They don't show the benefit of cooperation beyond the idea that someone wins. This weird dichotomy between the rules and how the game
works is quite interesting to look at and study, but not actually enjoyable to play.
Jeremy Avery: Okay so this is where I pop in again and say: I agree with you completely...
Because your last comments are right. Completely right in every way. BUT... that's what variants are for, right? I think Terra is nearly a great game. And with one rule change, I think it becomes a great game. If you can only have one Winner, why not have only one Loser? Here, for your consideration, is my "UN embargo" variant.
The rules lay out very clearly the conditions for winning, then add that after determining if the players have won, the person with the most points is the Winner. So I add this rule: If the game is not won by the players, and a loss is incurred, every player counts the points they have hoarded plus the points left in their hands, and whoever has the highest total is the Loser.
Now, the group I play with usually "wins" Terra because we all try and play in the spirit of the game. But by adding this variant, any players who needed some reason to be more charitable, have it. It adds a neat dynamic to the game where players are jostling to make sure they don't hold back too much, but still try and look after themselves. The best part about this variant (well, besides helping make the scrooges more giving) is that is fits well thematically. If you look at the solution cards as resources that have been committed to the UN, and suddenly those resources are held back and hoarded, put into the pockets of greedy autocrats, surely there should be repercussions on the international stage!
But it gets better. Whenever our group does "lose", we really REALLY (REALLY!) stick it to the Loser for being so selfish. It's all done in a lighthearted manner, but it's pretty funny to be playing Bohnanza later that night, then burn the Loser from Terra on a deal because he destroyed the earth and you "just can't in all good conscience let something like that slide". Not that the razzing has to spill into other games, but it sure is funny when it does!
Frank Branham: That's probably exactly what the game needs as a game.
But does that still work for its message? This is where I'm torn on exactly what Terra is telling us. The current game design seems to imply that if anyone does not cooperate, we are all screwed, and that there really is currently no reason to cooperate. And so what we have to really do is not to play the game, but fix the rules (and the system). The more I think about this, the game does really work at delivering its message.
And if Bruno and Days of Wonder consciously delivered a wonky game with these intentions, the messages could be a lot more clever than I've given it credit. But are people actually bright or would think enough about the topic to work that out?
I have noticed the same lack of penalties in Colony. The best way to win at Colony is to merrily grow, exploit, and watch native populations suffer under your rule. At the end of the game, there is a slight penalty for your exploitation, but not much.
Tom Vasel: I'm going to agree with Frank on this one. I've never pulled out Terra to have a fun game (at least, not after the first couple playings). Now I pull it out to see how a group will react to it. It's a way for me to peg people's personalities. On that level, it succeeds. Playing it as a game for fun is very risky, because one or two selfish people can ruin it for everyone else - meaning that the game degenerates from that point.
Jeremy Avery: This is soooo strange. Although I am finding this conversation interesting, I am completely befuddled as to this almost arcanely psychological approach to playing Terra. Although I admit the dynamic is one of the fun parts of the games, it is still a game. And a game that, when played with the right group of players (which for me is most of the groups I've played it with), is a neat tactical game of timing your points and trying to make temporary alliances in order to tag points for multiple players and get the game to succeed with your own self within striking distance of the lead. Sure, I think this works as a group dynamic exercise, but it works just fine as a game too. Better than fine in fact, I think this game borders on "great" status due to its unique approach to "co-op", its simple ruleset, and its neat socially tactical gameplay.
Frank Branham: I've tried to play it 4 or 5 times, and each time it has been ultimately completely frustrating, with us rarely making it close to the end of the game. When looking back on our plays, it really does seem to come down to the idea that our group cannot distinguish between themselves losing and all of the players losing. The game may go on fine for a bit, but as soon as one player begins to obviously hoard cards, our games have gotten more and more people to hoard cards.
A couple of the games had a player who began to hoard from the start, expecting the other players to carry him. Other games have ended with players who are behind just letting the world go to stop the leader from winning.
There is a game with some similar ideas as Terra called Vertigo. Vertigo has one of the things that Terra really needs, a UN with some teeth. The core of the game is that nations build factories to make more money to build more factories. The player, however, has a choice as to whether to build polluting or non-polluting factories. The UN can actively fine countries that heavily pollute if voted by the other players.
It would be the equivalent in Terra of allowing a vote of the other players to rip cards from a player's hand to help defeat a challenge.
Tom Vasel: Jeremy, what type of groups are you playing the game with? I found that the only group to survive getting nasty in a game was a group of cooperative kids. I have yet to meet a group of adults where at least one person (me included!) didn't try to win the game for themselves at one point, starting a spiral of self-destruction.
Jeremy Avery: I have yet to play this with kids, though I can see how it could work quite well. Actually, I've played this with quite a mix of different people: college-age kids from my Bible study, random mallrats at the gamestore, gamers at my local game group, and of all the participants, only two players killed the game. "Josh" (his real name) could (and does) kill every co-operative game he participates in, and one other player (who shall not be named) is hyper-analytical and competitive, and can't (refuses) to acknowledge the spirit of Terra and thus dooms us all to early defeats. I think the right approach is this: try and keep every one on an even keel and yourself within striking distance of the lead; any player who is falling behind is the one you want to make temporary alliances with so that they can make up some points while you deny them to your fellow leaders while pushing towards "winning"; try and win...and Win.
Tom Vasel: Well, for me it's simply a test of a gaming group, not a "fun" game really. One player got so upset at another player's selfishness that I was fairly alarmed and unhappy that I had suggested the game at all for that particular group. If a game causes problems like that - with no real way to resolve them (selfishness isn't really punished in the game), then why play it? And the theme didn't help matters either. Terra is a neat idea - in a perfect world. Sadly, that's not how life works.
Jeremy Avery: I truly am sorry that this game, so much fun for me and my friends, could instigate the type of incident you describe. And I agree with you that it is odd that Terra doesn't punish the players who are selfish...which is something I recognized during my second playing, and thus introduced the "capital 'L' Loser variant". Having said that, any co-op game can break the way you are describing. True, Terra is more 'selfish' than most co-op games, but I tell you true: I have been involved in some absolutely brutal games of both Lord of the Rings and Shadows Over Camelot where a player or two played completely for himself to the detriment of the win condition. One thing I think we can all agree on is that playing any game that has co-op elements requires players who can play to the spirit of the game. I am blessed to game with such people, so I can rate Terra an 8 out of 10.
Frank Branham: I just don't think it works very well at all. Simply the idea that other players are hoarding cards is enough to push the game into a death spiral.
I give it a 3 out of 10. I do really like the ideas and the premise, but I can't play it.
Tom's Rating: 5 out of 10
Jeremy's Rating: 8 out of 10
Frank's Rating: 3 out of 10
Tom Vasel is a game enthusiast currently living in Korea. He has written over 300 reviews, which can be found at www.tomvasel.com , and plays games solely to have fun. He writes a weekly game blog at www.Gamefest.com, also the home of his interviews with gaming notables, “Interviews by an Optimist.”
Jeremy Avery writes reviews for www.funagain.com, and is the designer of www.geocities.com/yahugaming - a web page devoted to helping people learn more about 'German' games.
Our guest reviewer is…
Frank Branham is a game collector with a 2,700 game collection. Occasionally he gets it in his head to design a game and has had 4 published games, including Dia die Los Muertos..
| Back to the
main page! |