Musings On... RoboRally (#16)
Tom Vasel: Some may consider Magic: the Gathering to be Richard Garfield's finest work, but I would respectfully disagree in favor of Robo Rally. Recently released by Hasbro, this game, which is now in its third incarnation, is one of chaos mixed with logic, and is possibly one of the most misplayed games outside of Monopoly. Many folk have been turned off by the game simply because they didn't play with a good setup, and I count myself fortunate that I had read about this problem before encountering my first game. I've never had a bad game of Robo Rally, and I've played it scores of times. It's a great game to teach logic to my math classes, and it's simply riotous fun, especially played with large groups. The key is in setting up a race track that is fun.- It needs to be small, only one to two boards in size.
- It needs to have criss-crossing paths.
- It needs to have some obstacles and special tiles - but not too many.
When a race course is properly set up, games can be quick and fun.
Larry Levy: Well, I've only played Robo Rally once. I managed to plunge my 'bot into a pit on THREE CONSECUTIVE TURNS, purely due to faulty programming. I guess you could say my spatial reasoning isn't too spatial! After that debacle, I asked if I could be excused from the remainder of the game and my opponents, after wiping the tears of laughter from their eyes, agreed. So I don't think I have anything of substance to say about this game, other than that, through no fault of the design, I will never play it again.
Andy Daglish: the renowned Andy Ogden managed to put his robot down the exact same hole three times consecutively, the third time whilst moving in reverse on a conveyor belt. A remarkable exhibition of quality gameplay, at least it would have been if he'd been trying.
RoboRally seems similar to the slightly earlier Droids by Eurogames. I recall this and the car race game PS as early Euro games spoiled by poor rules translations.
Wei-Hwa Huang: I find the expansions (which were more Glenn Elliott than Richard Garfield, IIRC) are much more exciting but leave a heck of a lot of ambiguities in the rules. I compiled a list of about 70 ambiguities in the rules back when I was really into the game.
For instance, there's one rule that *everyone* gets wrong: The Mechanical Arm is intended to update your robot's checkpoint, *not* tag a flag. This means that your archive advances, but until your robot actually lands on the space, you haven't made progress in the face yet!
I have to disagree with Tom about what makes an interesting race-track. I prefer games with lots of different obstacles and special tiles, and criss-crossing is only a means to an end -- which is that you want lots of robot interaction.
I find the house rule of having hit points on the flags works rather well. You imagine that each flag has a shield (four walls all around it), and the shield is destroyed once the flag is fired at 4 times. This means that the robots that are ahead need to wait there and fire at the shield while the other robots catch up.
There are two other rules I strongly prefer.
First is, always play with a timer. A lot of time is wasted when one player is taking a long time to program while everyone else is done. Someone (Greg Schloesser, I think) mentioned that if you do play with a timer, you can give everyone two "timestops" at the beginning of the game, where on two turns they get to declare no timer for that turn. For when your robot is in a really hairy place. A timing mechanism similar to Ricochet Robot might also be a good idea.
Second is, I refuse to play with infinite lives. This comes from an incident many years ago from a game where flags 2 and 4 were very close together, I was so far ahead I was going for 4 while the other players were going for 2, and everyone decided that the only way they could win is by cooperating to ambush my robot at flag 4. (This was very easy because both flags 2 and 4 were at the base of the Colosseum board). Now, I don't mind when alliances form against me -- as long as eventually I run out of lives and can leave the game. But we were playing with infinite lives, and so as a result we played for hours around those flags, no one making any progress.
Morgan Dontanville: I came to RoboRally late. I missed the first wave in '94 when Wizards of the Coast put it out. At the time I was still playing Blackbeard, Talisman and Hacker. Yes, a little behind the times, I know.
I had purchased and played with a small number of Magic cards and after spending over a hundred dollars on Magic decided I was going to avoid it and WotC entirely. A few years ago I got back into the hobby, and heard all about RoboRally. It sure sounded like
fun.
I finally tracked down a group that had this (I wasn't going to blow hundreds of dollars on a game I'd never played) and convinced them to play. I found that I was pretty good at it and broke away from the pack immediately.
To my chagrin, I started noticing how much of a random element of friction that the game forces into each play. Often, you just get cards that don't help you. Even though my hand was craptacular, my break away lead meant that no other robots were interfering with my plans. Even though the cards were ineffectual, I was still making minor progress. Those in the rear struggled for naught. Those that were injured where losing future card-play, thereby ensuring their position in last. More friction.
The game is long, the decisions are taxing but often invalidated, the downtime is significant, and the leaders remain leaders while those in the rear suffer under worse conditions.
My biggest problem was that this game just wasn't as fun as it should be. There are just too many better games with programmed moves.
Alfred Wallace: I'm a fairly big RoboRally fan, myself. In what's always a good sign with games, I almost always have fun even when I'm getting killed. I've found it to be a good source of great table talk, and there's also a good dose of thought involved, and that's a relatively rare combination.
But! It's by no means a perfect game. You can get to where there isn't a lot of interaction, or where a few players find themselves in an eddy while the leader charges forward. The card draw can jimmy up one's plans in a hurry. Personally, I'm not a huge fan of the mutations; I think they distract from the race-and-shoot aspect of the game, which is what I'm usually after. It can also sometimes extend its welcome. A lousy board is usually the culprit in games gone awry...
With a decent setup and good people around the table, though, this one's a winner. I'd hate to have to play it every day, or even every week, but in moderation I'm a fan. I give it an 8.
Tom Vasel: I'll agree that it takes the right crowd to enjoy RoboRally, but with that right crowd (which is pretty much anyone under 18, for sure!), the game just shines. When I play with a group of kids - or a lighthearted group of adults, I have had very few experiences that rival it - at least when playing with eight players.
Morgan, can you list games that are better with programmed routes? I can't think of any that match RoboRally in terms of sheer fun.
Larry Levy: Well, I'm not Morgan, but I play one on TV. Dragon Delta is a very enjoyable programmed movement game which is always a lot of fun. As I mentioned, my one attempt at RoboRally was a definite fiasco, so it's obvious which game I prefer.
Aaron Fuegi: For me Frank's Warhamster Rally is a much more fun game with a similar programming aspect and more interesting decisions with greater controlled interaction. I also agree with Frank that once you get down how to play your cards to best do what you want (which for some people is much easier than others), there just aren't that many interesting choices to make. You decide where you're trying to go and play your cards to make as much progress as you can to that goal and then see what happens based on the moves others make.
Also, since I have usually not played with a timer, the downtime in this game can really get to be huge and a major drain on the fun.
Tom Vasel: And why does having your robot killed devastate so many people? I laugh, pick up the pieces, and move on. But I notice how people, who when they do poorly, tend to dislike the game. Does RoboRally have that effect more than other games? Do people who can't visualize their moves naturally have a dislike for the game?
Larry Levy: Well, naturally, if you can't visualize the moves, you're not going to like the game. The whole game is about visualizing moves. If you can't evaluate the cards in Modern Art or if you can't figure out when people are bluffing in Poker, I wouldn't think you'd enjoy those games much either. You don't have to be an expert to enjoy a game,
but some modicum of competency is probably required. And (speaking from experience) continually misjudging the effects of your programmed moves in RR can be very frustrating.
Mark Jackson: So, we're agreed that RoboRally works best with:
- the right crowd
- the right board
Which begs the questions:
- what is the right crowd?
- what is the right board?
I'll take my best shot.
The right crowd is a delicate mix of whimsy (we're racing robots through a Looney Tunes-like factory environment here - it's all I can do to keep from humming the factory theme from the Bugs Bunny cartoons) and gamer-ish-ness (as using the programmed movement cards is not always simple for non-gamers.) The right crowd finds it funny that everyone is "doin' the robot dance", that silly upper body spinning that players do as they try to plot out their moves. The right crowd also doesn't take the game too seriously - between the randomness of the card draws ("look, ma, no left turns!") and the chaotic nature of bumping, sometimes your fate is completely out of your hands.
The right board is short and has at least one crossover point, where the leaders have to face the stragglers as they attempt to get back to the flag. This mitigates the runaway leader syndrome that is inherent in the game if the boards don't fix it.
I'm "on the fence" about the special powers - we finally sorted through them and took out the most irritating ones. Then we broke them into defensive & offensive piles and each player got to pick 2 from each pile and keep one. It made for a more interesting race (for us, granted).
Now, in the interest of transparent journalism, you need to know that I sold my copy of RoboRally + expansions a couple of years back for a nice chunk of cash. I realized that while I enjoy the game, I didn't enjoy it enough to keep it on my shelf. I'm happy the reprint is around because it increases the chances that I'll get to play a game I enjoy without having to own it.
Greg Schloesser: I will concur with Mark's assessment.
Frank Branham: Actually I'm curious to know everyone's opinions on how deep the game is. To my thinking, the game is mostly about working out your "best" move. But, because you have no knowledge about the other player's hands, and have to plan so far in advance, picking your best move mostly ignores the other players. In a few cases on the first and maybe the second move, you can account for what another player will do, but that is the extent that player interaction affects your planning.
The thing is, the planning aspect of the game is the only part in which you are actually playing. The rest of the game is watching the rather chaotic outcome. And the planning doesn't seem to have much interaction, and the decisions involved are not really that tricky. They are somewhat time-consuming as you try a few different options, but your "best" move is usually fairly obvious.
Does anyone agree or disagree with this?
Morgan Dontanville: Frank, I absolutely agree. The lack of any real knowledge of what your opponents are doing or what they are capable of doing makes any planning futile and any interaction completely coincidental.
Even the choice to shoot someone is based solely on the happenstance of whether or not someone accidentally moved into a line of sight. There is no choice toward whether to do this or not, it is obvious. If the game offered you the choice to shoot by burying the next order or the last order, there would at least be a decision to be made.
Ed Rozmiarek: As I mentioned on my website recently, RoboRally has a soft spot in heart as it is probably the first "Euro" game I played way back when (1997 or 1998). Being a spatial person and a programmer, I was immediately attracted to the game. Susan and I played it a lot for over a year before we really got into Euros with the Settlers card game and Elfenland. I still proudly have my complete collection of all of the original game (with all expansions and my painted minis) and just had to get the new release when it came out. (By the way, I do not like the new thin boards and I prefer the metal minis over the new plastic ones. I do really like the plastic flags, individual player boards and predesigned courses. I'm 50/50 on the new start board as I never had any trouble with the virtual bot rule.)
I will agree with a lot of what has been stated up to now. You need good course design, experienced people to keep the game moving and everyone must be ready for some random action. However, it is NOT a random game. I can say this because I have played over 1000 games of RoboRally, or more specially, RoboRunner, the online play-by-web clone at http://www.eyeplaygames.com.
Having played so many games and won more than my fair share. There are others online that win a large number of their games as well. I can state with confidence that there is some skill in playing the game well and making the best of what cards you do get. I find the puzzle aspect of planning your move the best part of the game. Finding a clever way of using your cards can be very gratifying. Yes, everyone is going to get those hands of all turns, all moves, no right turns, etc. I have had many online games where I could get absolutely no good cards. I have also had many games where I was the start-to-finish leader, many come from behind wins, and I have lost count of the number of nail biters that have come down to the bots' priorities on the final register phase.
If you have only played the game once, twice or just a handful of times, you just haven't played it enough. In time the card draws even out and the better players will rise to the top. I understand that some people will never have the spatial ability to view the board, but I think many people can learn it with enough practice. I think the game shines online where you can play many games (even practice with single player games). Online you don't care if a slow programmer takes 10 minutes for a move and the computer handles the dirty work.
I do think there is *one* critical thing missing from real game (which has been a house rule many people play with). To control the run away leader issue, you *must* play with damage counters on the flags. Take four pennies and stack them on the flags. Each penny takes one shot to remove. Bots may not touch the flag until all of the pennies are removed from a flag. I think a large majority of the online games use this option.
Mark Jackson: Sorry, Ed... I don't think the online experience approximates the board game, as you can take the necessary time to think through your moves online.
Ed Rozmiarek: True, face to face will almost always be a better "experience" but as a training vehicle for bot programming, it is very good. Some people play the game once or twice and don't "get" the programming or can't handle the pressure of being timed. Playing/practicing the game online allows you to take your time and learn without the timed pressure.
Morgan Dontanville: For me, with few exceptions, it is essential for a game to create the illusion of control. I like to have my chaos and randomness coated with at least a thin veneer of command and a sense that I can master my actions; that when I lose, which is often, it was from my own doing.
If the game is a quick filler, I don't mind if a bad die roll or two throws my game, but of the many things that can be said about RoboRally, ya can't say it's short. You are given random cards that you are expected to do something worthwhile with, and when you get injured the less you can do. RoboRally, at moments is exciting seeing what can be done with so little, but often your moves are either obvious or impossible (or certainly less than optimal), so you must bide your time until you get better cards. Nothing like getting all turns. Then you have to ask yourself why you don't just have the option to pass an action, why MUST you move your robot.
The pre-programmed games that I enjoy have a menu of actions that you can always choose from (with one exception). If RoboRally were the first of its kind I would be a bit more forgiving, but I can’t help but look what came before.
Gunslinger gives you a hand of cards that lists all of your options available. I find that it elegantly controls movement by putting opposing actions on the flip side of cards to eliminate illogical maneuvering.
Swashbuckler, while certainly clunky, is much simpler example of having a list of options and taking hold of them to best act out what you want to enable. Plus, you get to wave your hat to distract your opponents.
In the last few years, there have been a number of pre-programmed games that I’ve enjoyed. Dragon Delta is fun to bust out now and again. I feel it is one of the better 6 player intro games out there. It uses a set selection of cards and doesn’t require you to move your piece, so that you can use them to manipulate, plan and effect changes in the board’s make up and other player’s plans.
Wings of War uses a clean movement system that emulates the hang-ups of WWI planes. It plays quickly, and it forces some choices, but I don’t feel that it creates artificial friction the way that RoboRally does.
In RoboRally, when you get hit you lose the abilities to draw cards making your options even fewer, and control even scarcer. Wreckage handles this well, as when you suffer serious damage one of your cards is drawn from your hand, thereby limiting your normal
options. At this point you have to make due.
Contrast to RoboRally, in Piranha Pedro everyone tries to control a single character, and while it is chaotic and random, what makes this enjoyable for me is that my choices are never random only the results. Everyone starts with the same hand, and if you play with cards face up you can get a good idea of the options that people have, and a with keen insight you can make plans that more or less work out. Also, PP is quick.
Lastly if you look at other ways that this mechanic has been implemented you can examine how clean Wallenstein had put this into action. The game lays out the options and you chose where you put the options. It also respects the ability to not do anything in an area.
Wei-Hwa Huang: I can't really disagree with the claim that Robo Rally works best with "the right crowd" and "the right setup", but that's really a very pointless claim. Is there any game that *doesn't* work best under those conditions?
As for what the right crowd and the right boards are, often one makes up for the other. There are some people who like the game so much they'll play any board under any rules. And there are some board setups that are good enough that even people who are lukewarm towards the game will probably still have fun with.
In some sense, you're not getting a game as much as you're getting a game construction kit. Here are some of the variants I've played:
(1) Runaway Flag -- the flag gets a random movement card every turn, so it moves away and stuff. Comic relief ensues when robots try to tag the flag just as it sneaks away from them, or when the flag decides it wants to fly over a pit as poor robots wait on the edge of the cliff shouting, "Come back, Shane!"
(2) Borg Cube -- six boards, arranged as if they folded up into a cube. Imagine a planet shaped like a cube, with the boards joined at the edges.
(3) Layers of Hell -- three boards, connected "vertically". The only way to get to the next board is to jump down a pit (you get two points of damage and appear in the corresponding position on the next board).
(4) Team Fortress/Capture the Flag -- no race, but two teams of robots each try to grab the enemy team's flag and take it back to their home base.
(5) The Warehouse -- one of the boards (Pit Maze) if considered toroidal (wraparound), has this nice long conveyor belt that is just a really big loop. Get a bunch of tokens and put them on the belt; those represent boxes. The goal of the robots is to push the boxes down the pits! Whoever destroys most boxes wins.
All of these variants have a rather different flavor than the basic game, so much so that I'd almost be tempted to call them different games.
Alfred Wallace: A while back, I decided that there were three reasons I might like a game:
* It stimulates me intellectually,
* It stimulates my imagination (i.e., theme), or
* It's socially stimulating.
There are games I like, and that I consider to be "good games," that score on all combinations of those. (Except for "none of the above.")
RoboRally scores highest for me on the latter two--the theme is great, and it (and the gameplay) seem to engender Good Times around the table. (Such has been my experience.) (Basically, if people are spontaneously making sound effects to accompany their moves, it's a good sign for the thematic and social qualities.) On the first count--intellectual stimulation--the game is typically not that hard if you have developed visualization skills. (If you can't visualize where your 'bot is going to be after three cards, I can't imagine enjoying the game or being anything but very, very frustrated by what it makes you do.)
Now, that's not trivial (after all, move visualization is all that Ricochet Robot is, and we generally consider that one to be fairly stimulating), and it's a skill that can be learned (my first game, I got stranded on one board just going around in circles--by the next
game, I had gotten a better handle of how everything worked). Once you get it, though, the decisions as to what cards to play when do, indeed, become relatively non-taxing, and "playing out the cards" is pretty much all mechanical.
I guess I just don't mind. It just seems to come together sufficiently well as a somewhat nerdy party game, essentially. I'm just not looking for a tournament experience. There are other games to play if I'm looking for that.
[sidebar]
Generally, as a mechanic, I'm a big fan of programmed movement. I think, though, that some of the times it's used it's not used very effectively. I'm thinking here especially of Wings of War and the naval component of For Honor and Glory. There, at the beginning of the turn you lay out n movement cards (or chits, in FH&G), resolve them (firing, etc as appropriate), and then set out another three cards the next turn. Trouble is, that's not how "moves" were "programmed" in the air or on the sea--which is why, in those games, after Card 1 is resolved, I play a variant where you play a new card down at the end of the line, so you're always thinking n moves ahead.
[/sidebar]
I like Dragon Delta, but I've never had as much fun playing DD as RR, theoretical advantages to DD aside. There are games I'd rather play--in the abstract--than RoboRally, but there have been many times when RoboRally was--right then, right there, and with these people--the perfect choice.
I've also noted the proliferation of variants the game has engendered--there are some on the official website, even; the "Pac Man" variant sounds bizarre--and I guess I see that, in this case, optimistically--that is, that the game is sufficiently good/engrossing/whatever that players take pains to improve it, rather than that it's sufficiently broken to need duct tape stretched across the holes.
Richard Young: The programmed move idea has always appealed to me as a way of getting away from the I Go, You Go turn-based nature of most board games. I remember being quite attracted to the feature in some of the AH classics such as Jutland, Luftwaffe, and Magic Realm. The fact that you were required to plan your course in advance and were committed to what you had planned despite the unexpected interaction with your opponent(s) that might occur along the way added an element of "fog and friction" not normally present on a board where you had perfect intel.
Wei-Hwa Huang: Some people point out that the decision of what to do on each turn isn't intellectually challenging. I think that is true, but I also think that that is the nature of many games that attempt to emulate a race. When you're driving a race car, usually the decision of how much to accelerate and how much to turn the steering wheel is easily deducible from general principles -- the difficulty lies in doing it with the limited amount of reaction time you get. I think that's why I find Robo Rally to be much more interesting with a timer -- instead of players trying to find the optimal move (which is reasonably easy if given as much time as you want); your goal is to make the best move within a limited amount of time.
I'd compare Robo Rally with Formula De in terms of complexity, flexibility, and play style. Neither game feels particularly like a "German-style strategy game" to me, and I think trying to squeeze it into that niche fails to take advantages of its strengths.
Morgan Dontanville: Wei-Hwa, I'm inclined to agree with you, most racing games aren't all that intellectually challenging. That said, I am a fan of racing games.
What I look for in a racing game is a mechanic that allows for the control to push the limits of safety and tuning into the threshold of how far or fast are you willing to go. Are you going to burn yourself out?
The other thing I need in a racing game is a way to interact with the other players. I like blocking people out, forcing their moves, jockeying for position and silly fun things like slip-streaming. Overall I want choices based around how I affect other players and weighing how their moves would affect my game.
I don't feel that RoboRally does any of this. I find that I just do what I can and see what happens.
Mark Jackson: Spot on! This is what makes RoboRally an "experience" game vs. a game of, to misquote The Princess Bride, "skill vs. skill".
Tom Vasel: I think that a large part of RoboRally DOES do this. Players can do a bit of bluffing - act like they are going in a certain direction, etc. For example, if Morgan and I are playing the same game, and both of us are facing the same square, do we move into it? I might take the chance and move into it, hoping that he will quit the game of "Chicken", and turn or go another way. Or, I might decide that he's going to blindly move forward, so I might as well turn and go another way. Or, I might figure he's going to move, so I'll move a bit slower, pushing him out of the way. Either way, my decision is based on what I think he's going to do. And it's that second guessing of the other players that I enjoy about the game. Sure, it's fun to watch the chaos for me, but it's not nearly as chaotic as you might think, especially if you get good at reading the other players.
Nick Danger: Bingo! I think you just spotlighted what it is about the game I don't care for. It's basically a blind bidding game! A mechanic I've come to the conclusion that just doesn't sit well with me as the main ingredient in a game design. For me RoboRally is one of those games that sounds like it should be fun, but in actually just doesn't deliver. I had the game and sold it, and have never regretted it.
But in all fairness, I have since had some fun playing it online where I do think some of the fun comes through - as a part time diversion. It's a game about programming robots. It belongs on a computer.
Morgan Dontanville: Tom, I get what you are saying about the double think thing. I'd rather try to spend my mental energies on the double think over options that are available. It isn't chicken to me if either party isn't capable of moving into said same space. Then that information just isn't knowable.
After reviewing what I've said about the game here, I feel that I have failed to mention one very important thing about the game.
It is a fundamentally brilliant design.
This means that for me I like the puzzle aspects of it, I like the concepts, I like the way the cards work with each other, I enjoy trying to figure out how to make best with what you've been given, I like the theme, and I love the robots.
The reason why I'm so hard on this game, is that it just didn't live up to what I was hoping it would be. But I do get why people spend so much energy trying to fix it up.
I always look at every game as a kit and frankly I think this is a good kit. Some games arbitrarily merit my energy to make it better suit my tastes, but while I liked RoboRally enough to probably play again, I didn't fall in love with it enough to justify the house rules. I think it is a fun system, though, that just should payoff more than it does.
Rating 6/10
Greg Schloesser: Robo Rally is a fun game, provided the board layout is kept short, and the pathway to the various checkpoints requires that players once again cross the path of the other players. This gives players the opportunity to "zap" the leaders and close the gap.
It is a game that does allow players to "ham-it-up" a bit, role-playing their characters and getting into the atmosphere of the scene.
I'm happy to see it back in production.
Nick Danger: This is still Robo Rally we're talking about here, right? Role playing? Ham it up? Who are you, Shields and Yarnell?
Other than making a bunch of wacky R2D2 noises I can't picture climbing too much into the atmosphere of this game. Okay, maybe an occasional "Danger Will Robinson!" but that's about it.
Jason Little: 7/10 ... Amazing when it first hit the scene, but appears a bit clunky and unwieldy compared to silky-smooth eurogames. A game where the concept and potential fun are greater than the implementation and actual fun. Lends itself to over-analysis and programming can take forever, but the new edition addresses this with a countdown clock once players start to complete their programmed actions. Novel ideas, brain-burning decisions and planning, and a great time to be had with the right group. Problem might be finding enough others that agree this is a good way to spend an evening.
Alfred Wallace: RoboRally's a game I've always enjoyed, as I love the theme, and it seems to engender good feelings in the players. It's not the most elegant game out there, the trick is in visualizing rather than assessing possible moves, and there are some house rules that really improve the game...which are flaws, I suppose, but it's still a game I've always enjoyed and look forward to.
8/10
Wei-Hwa Huang: Robo Rally isn't quite a game yet -- it's more like a game construction set, where players choose and customize their own game scenarios to their liking. With people who know how to do that and target the players well, the game can be quite rewarding.
8/10
~FIN
See you next time, folks….
Musings On…
Edited by Tom and Laura Vasel
October 2, 2005
www.thedicetower.com
| Back to the
main page! |