Musings On... Royal Turf (#9)
Jeremy: From the moment I first saw Royal Turf, I was impressed. For one, it was in an ever-impressive Alea box (the Rolls-Royce of board game brands), but it also had a visual presentation that really caught my eye. Elegant fonts, classic artwork, and a palette that did a fine job of evoking an afternoon at "the races." Up to that point in my gaming career, Reiner Knizia had done nothing but disappoint me with a host of abstract mathish games that did nothing to enthuse me. And then along comes this relatively simple variation on a dice game that uses a couple very simple mechanics to produce one of the best short board games I have ever had the pleasure of playing. You've heard of "le mot juste"? This is "le jeu juste"? Royal Turf is the perfect, appropriate entry into the short, simple board game category.Larry: Elegant fonts, evocative palette, blah, blah, blah. Can we talk about the game, please? Okay, Jeremy, I'm happy you like the artwork, I really am (it honestly never made an impression on me, one way or the other). And I'm even happier that Royal Turf jarred you out of your bizarre prejudice against Knizia's games. But, unlike you, RK has been my favorite designer for quite a while. To me, one of the truly remarkable things about his work is that despite his prodigious output, just about all his games "work". Some are great and some merely good, but his consistency in producing enjoyable games is astonishing. I can really only think of three of his designs that I don't like (and I've played a LOT of Knizia titles). One is Galaxy: The Dark Ages (although I'm inclined to blame Don Greenwood for that one). One is last year's Spy. And the third is Royal Turf. Place a bet (with little, if anything, to go on), roll a die, hope you get something reasonable, curse when you don't, see who wins...oh, the thrills. I've played this a quite a few times, I've won, I've lost, and I can't recall a single moment when I cared. It's high-luck, it has little control, and it's boring. That's three strikes, and this puppy is out.
Jeremy: Well, sir, you are certainly entitled to your opinions, but they are just that -- opinions. Reiner Knizia has a sizable following to be sure, but almost all of that following would be classed as serious gamers (and not even all serious gamers like Knizia's style). Fact of the matter is, that given a plethora of games to choose from, I can think of very few games by Knizia that my family and casual gamer buddies enjoy playing. So your rather absolute use of the term "enjoyable games" is suspect at best, and grossly misleading to many. I happily straddle two worlds, both serious gamers and casual, yet there are very few of Knizia's games (at least, very few percentage wise!) that I find at all enjoyable. And one of them is most certainly Royal Turf. Easy to teach, wonderful visuals -- those two factors are instant hooks to get most people to try it at least once. And the gameplay usually wins them over. Place your bets (secretly is the best way) on your horses, then roll the die and so begins the wonderfully tense process of trying to decide which horse to move and when: tracking other players' preferences of horses, hoping to find out where there big bets are, trying to decide when to "sink" a horse by burning up most of its move points, when to try and bring a neutral horse forward to deny a third place finish for an opponent. All of this from a "roll a die, choose a horse" mechanic. Simple, tense, elegant!
Larry: Yes, I agree that my opinion on Royal Turf is just that, as is my characterization of most of Knizia's games as "enjoyable". But if I may make an aside, I think your implication that Knizia designs mostly "serious" games is untrue. What about Lost Cities and his related games Tabula Rasa and Schotten Totten/Battle Line? What about Vampire, a very nice light Rummy-like game? Or fillers like High Society, Money, Zirkus Flohcati, Wheedle, or Ohio? What about Trendy (you can't get much lighter than that)? Or dicefests like Exxtra and Clash of the Gladiators? Even many of his board games play very fast, like Quo Vadis, Tutanchamun, and Quandary--what about them? Or games as disparate as En Garde, Honeybears, Drahtseilakt, It's Mine!, Korsar, Too Many Cooks, Einfach Genial, and Marco Polo, all of which are quite light. The fact is that Knizia began his career specializing in quick, light designs, and he has recently been returning to his roots. There was only about a four-year period (quite possibly when you were discovering him, Jeremy) when he was noted for serious, gamer's games. I love those heavy Knizia titles, but I also love his lighter designs. I realize that you don't care for most Knizia games, but I don't think it's because he is incapable of appealing to casual gamers--quite the contrary!--but merely that you don't care for his design style.
So let me come clean with my own prejudices. Royal Turf is not the kind of game I would expect to enjoy. I tend to dislike high-luck designs. For some reason, there are very few racing games that I like--possibly because of their reliance on luck--and the ones that I do like, such as Hare and Tortoise or Breaking Away, are much more mathematical and have little, if any, luck. Games with luck that I do like are usually short; and Royal Turf, at a little over an hour, is far from a filler. And we may just get our gaming angst from different sources, Jeremy. I feel genuine tension during Ticket to Ride, as I'm wondering if an opponent will claim a critical route before I can. Or in Union Pacific, as I gamble that a scoring round won't appear before I can select all the shares I need. I simply don't feel this kind of tension in Royal Turf. Will the die come up with the symbol I need? Maybe or maybe not--it's just luck. Will an opponent move my horse a tiny amount before my turn arrives? Perhaps, and probably because he has nothing better to do with his roll, but there isn't a thing I can do to prevent it. These questions fill me with no angst at all.
Most damning of all, I just find Royal Turf too simple. The betting is a crap shoot, and I find most of the decisions to be either obvious or a toss-up. I suppose you can try to figure out who's bet on which horse, but with so many combinations possible and with their actions determined by chance anyway, it just seems more trouble than it's worth. The sad fact is that the game doesn't engage me in the least.
I realize my opinion is a minority view. The game's rating on the Geek is 7.2, which is quite impressive. But that does nothing to change the fact that this is a game I actively avoid.
Jeremy: At the risk of running this conversation completely off the rails, let me chime in very briefly. True, Knizia does design many light filler games, but even most of those light games have their greatest appeal as good filler for...serious gamers. There are a couple exceptions, but for the most part, my casual gamer buddies have not enjoyed many of Knizia's lighter offerings either. They tend to be mathy, dry, and mechanic-heavy, while lacking that magical, fun-factor. You may disagree personally, but my experience has been that most of his games are "one and done" with casual gamers and families. Why Royal Turf is so amazing to me is that the game introduces some good elements (bluffing, betting, interesting decisions), and combining them into a game that captures the atmosphere of a day at the track. Trendy, High Society, and many other Knizia games may be light, but have fallen flat with most of my non-gamer friends. There's something very special about Royal Turf...
Tom: When I have five or six people willing to play a game, and I don't have much time to teach a new one; Royal Turf is one of the first candidates to come to the table. It's simple, fun, and engaging, and has a quick replay value. When I say "quick", I mean that two games in a row (especially for new players) is not an uncommon thing. Everyone enjoys trying to get their favored horses over the finish line, and the game is not too lengthy to become tedious. The long-term replay value, on the other hand, is not quite so good. It seems as if Royal Turf loses its luster early. I've played the game dozens of times, and frankly, am just a little tired of it. In small doses, it's great; and I'll gladly pull it out when I play with folk who have never played the game before. And I'm pleased as punch that Face 2 Face games are putting out a new version of the game. I just don't see it coming off the shelf more than a couple times a year for me (after the first year of massive playings).
Jeremy: Unlike Tom, I don't wait until I have 5 or 6 players; I am perfectly happy to bring this out with as little as 3! Like Tom, the game for me had a high novelty factor and got played a lot early on; but even now, after a break away from it, I am willing to play it fairly often. I wouldn't be disappointed if I got in at least a play a week. The graphics and mechanics invoke the theme very well, and the ease-of-play makes it a great intro-to-games, or outro-to-game-night. I can't remember what I rated it on the Geek, but I'll run over there and change it from whatever it is to an "8". This is a very solid game that I will suggest myself and has proven immensely popular with casual gamers -- and even my game group. The Face 2 Face edition will have a slightly longer track and some different distribution of horses, which ought to make for some interesting twists. But even if those twists prove to be a flop, you can still play the original rules -- and enjoy it as much as I have.
Larry: I'm happy that you both enjoy the game, but it just isn't for me. It completely fails to engage me, and I find the decision-making to be relatively obvious and uninteresting. It's the kind of a game you can play on autopilot (in fact, I've done that and won!), but that's really not something I look for in a game. Even Knizia, my favorite designer, isn't going to connect with every gamer every time, and this is just one of his rare designs that misses with me. C'est la vie!
Tom: I'm not sure how much fun the game is with three. Several horses won't be moved at all, and it's harder for alliances to be formed. It's almost to the point where I say "6 players or not at all." Now this doesn't take into account that Face 2 Face Games is promising a republishing of the game, and some things may be changed about it. For one thing, I certainly hope that they change the colors of the horses. I know that the colors picked come close to the actual colors of horses, but the light brown and medium brown horse are constantly confused by players. This is a small issue, I know, but for some reason it pops up in every game.
Jeremy: Different strokes for different folks I guess: I think the color scheme in Royal Turf is perfect with its horsey earth-tones. True, not a game to be played in soft light, but worth it for the atmosphere. But, for Tom, and all other anti-"earthtone"-ers, from what I learned from Larry at Origins, the colors will indeed be more colorful in the Face-to-Face release. (Though how I feel about betting on a pink horse is a topic for another discussion...) I don't know all the changes that will be made, but I do think that the Alea release is first-class all the way. Let's hope Face-to-Face does a quality job on the graphics so that another wave of gamers can enjoy this excellent game.
Tom: What do you all think of the "zero" bid? Apparently it's in the game because of a bluffing aspect, but I can usually determine where everyone's "zero" bids are after only a turn or two. Perhaps there's a subtlety to the strategy that I'm missing here - it just seems like it's not worth it to advance a horse you have no interest in, for the sole purpose of bluffing...
Jeremy: I find the zero bid quite effective in most playings. The key is to give it a couple of moves when you have only medicore options anyways. This will give concern to the other players who will then try and pre-empt that horse. Obviously different players will respond different to your play; but against alert gamers, this often works well and keeps them guessing as to whom you really have a stake in. To me, it is these numbers that make the game a lot of fun. I often will sink a horse that I have a 1 on if I am fairly certain two of my opponents have a 2 on it, and vice versa. The key is to win more than your opponents, since it is difficult to deny them money at all.
Larry: I can see where the zero bid can work. The advantage in Royal Turf, as opposed to other games in which your true objective is unknown, like Heimlich & Co. and Clans, is that you only have to concentrate your bluffs on a single horse. In the other games, concentrating that much on a single color would seem suspicious, so you usually have to spread things around, which not only makes it harder to advance your own color, but dilutes the bluff.
Does it pay to do much bluffing? I guess so, in the right circumstances, but they don't seem too likely. You'd have to share the horse with another player or players (otherwise, what's the point; if you're alone, they'll ignore you anyway) and have to hope that their interest on the horse is sufficiently small to make them willing to sacrifice their interests to stop what they think is your big payday. Since the bets are so close in value, the odds of this happening seem small. Frankly, given the luck of the die, I think your best bet is just advancing the horse with the greatest value to you; there's enough chaos in the mechanics to shield your true intentions long enough without worrying about bluffing. Of course, to be fair, bluffing isn't my favorite game mechanism.
I think the bigger problem with the betting is the placement phase. You're usually trying to use your bets to form temporary alliances with one or more players, since it's so hard to win on your own (I'm not sure the extra payout makes a solo horse a worthwhile gamble). The problem is, you have no idea of the number on your opponent's bids, and this can have a tremendous effect on the outcome of the race. Since there's little to distinguish the horses at the start, this is pretty much a crap shoot. If two players are fortunate enough to both get juicy bids on the same horse, they have an excellent chance of winning, since they'll both try their darndest to advance that nag. Just another bit of randomness in this game, I'm afraid.
Tom: I really enjoy bluffing and try to incorporate it as much as possible in Royal Turf, even though I believe that it's fairly difficult. I do agree with Larry that it's almost impossible to advance a horse by yourself (except perhaps in a three-player game), so why even try? It's frustrating to place your "2" bet on a horse, and then have no one else bid on that horse, because that pretty much insures that your horse isn't going to do well. Now, before I get off sounding negative about the game, I enjoy it DESPITE the grievances I have. I think it's fast, fun; and the groans and cheers, when a horse is moved a short distance, are deafening if the crowd really gets into it. I really find it fascinating how some horses seem to do better than others (although I THINK they're balanced.)
Jeremy: Well, as much as Tom likes it, I seem to like it most, so let me say that I think a game this small that exudes this much atmosphere, plays this simply, and elicits this much enjoyment from people (especially casual gamers) is a game I want in my game closet permanently. It has been a bit hard to find, and the new Face to Face release will bring in a whole host of new fans too, I believe. I say, 3 cheers for Reiner, for such a gem of a game.
Larry: I agree there's something very special about Royal Turf--it's one of the few Knizia games that bores me silly! Well, we seem to have reached an impasse, Jeremy. The things you like about Royal Turf are the same things that keep it off my gaming table. I have had tremendous success with Knizia's lighter games with gamers of all kinds; you haven't. I think we'll just have to agree to disagree.
Tom’s rating: 7.5 out of 10
Jeremy’s rating: 8 out of 10
Larry’s rating: 4 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.boardgamegeek.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:
Larry Levy spends his spare time working as a systems engineer; his real job is playing and writing about games. He has written articles and reviews for Counter, The Game Report, Gamers Alliance Report, and other publications. He is privileged to play with the marvelous DC Gamers and has the very great fortune of being married to Sheryl, a tolerant non-gamer. His website Huzonfirst Games (www.huzonfirstgames.com) contains his writings and some of his game designs, along with other useful information. One of these days, he may even take the time to update it!
| Back to the
main page! |