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. ︎

I’m excited to reveal the first expansion for Finspan, Sharks & Reefs!

Finspan: Sharks & Reefs adds to the variety of the core game with a focus on sharks and fish that live among coral reefs. This expansion introduces new coral reef habitats to your ocean mat and more incredible sharks—with fearsome new abilities!

Players can now nurture colorful coral reefs in each of their ocean’s three dive sites. Healthy reefs enable you to play powerful reef fish, unlock fish abilities, and score bonuses at the end of the game. Meanwhile, sharks scatter schools of young (to form even more schools elsewhere) and leave behind food scraps that any fish in your ocean can consume.

Sharks & Reefs is designed by Michael O’Connell, illustrated by Ana María Martínez, Catalina Martínez, & Mesa Schumacher, developed by David Gordon and Elizabeth Hargrave, and features an Automa solo mode by David Studley. The Finspan core game is required to play the Sharks & Reefs expansion, and the full rulebook is available now.

You can see larger versions of these slides on Instagram.

Over the next few days we will share stories about the creation of Finspan: Sharks & Reefs in the design diary series on our website, in the Finspan Facebook group, and on BoardGameGeek. Here is today’s post:

April 16: The Inception of Finspan: Sharks & Reefs and Product Design

Here’s designer Michael O’Connell with some Finspan backstory and an introduction to this expansion:

When David Gordon and I designed Finspan, we weren’t sure how it would be received. How would the world react to a third -span title, especially one released just one year after Wyrmspan? We had known for years that we wanted to do a game like this. There is even a topic on the Stonemaier Games Discord server that’s still called “aquatic Wingspan,” where folks within the company post regularly about the game. But would the public embrace it? Did fish hold the same fascination for people as birds and dragons?

Of course, Finspan has done everything we hoped it would. As with the other -span titles, it has helped bring new players into the hobby. Many content creators have tried to articulate why all three games deserve a place on your shelf. Each has its own identity. Finspan is the friendly one. Open hands, so everyone at the table knows what you’re working with. Abilities that help other players as well as yourself. Fascinating fish facts on the cards that make you want to read them aloud. Components that are colorful and a tactile delight—especially if you pick up the “squishy eggs” upgrade pack. The goal has always been that Finspan be genuinely inviting. A game where players can help each other, where the rules are intuitive, and where you aren’t asked to make a lot of small decisions.

We never wanted players to feel stuck or confused about how to get the resources they need. Need new fish? Dive here. Need eggs? Dive here. Need young or a school? Dive here. It’s always clear how to progress. The only thing you need to worry about is how to optimize that progression. That’s where the game’s depth lives. (Pun intended.) Finspan’s intricacies reveal themselves as you play, rather than hitting you all at once. And the game is forgiving. Don’t like your engine? Consume that fish that gives you nothing but points with a larger one that has an IF ACTIVATED ability. There is always a way forward.

Once you know how to play the game, my hope is that you never need to return to the rulebook. The player aids, the achievement board, the ocean mat—those should be enough. I don’t know if that’s possible to achieve with every group of players, but it’s what I strive for, and it shapes every decision I make about what goes into an expansion.

So. Sharks & Reefs.

When Jamey and I began talking about designing the Finspansions, we had the typical discussions around what players might want to see, what things might be improved about the game, and what things might be accentuated. However, in the case of Finspan, there was an additional consideration: Many, perhaps even most Finspan players are not typically the people who buy expansions. I’m guessing a lot of them don’t even know that expansions to board games are a thing. Players who buy expansions often want more to think about. But, with Finspan, we’ve tried to limit “more for the sake of more.”

And so, Sharks & Reefs is not just a “more cards” expansion. It adds a dimension to the game without the burden of exponential complexity. The coral overlay and tokens and new reef fish enhance the tactical and strategic choices available to you on nearly every turn. The sharks feel splashy and reward a well-timed turn, but they don’t require you to set your brain on fire to play them effectively. I’ve taught the game to brand new players with Sharks & Reefs included from the start, and it wasn’t dramatically more difficult than teaching the base game alone, which is exactly what I intended.

We designed Finspan (the core game) at the same time that Connie Vogelmann was designing Wyrmspan. Connie finished first, and so Wyrmspan was released first. (Yeah, she was faster than David Gordon and I combined.) But that gave us a year-long window to think ahead—to design the mats and the base game rules with future expansions already in mind while still giving our 100% focus on making the base game a complete package.

I started work on the first two expansions while Wyrmspan was still being released and while the base game of Finspan was still in development (though we waited a few months after Finspan was released before finalizing the first expansion so we could learn from public feedback). This let me make choices that allow future content to slot in organically. The deepwater row in the base game is a good example of this. It started as an expansion idea, but playtesters loved those nightmare-fuel abyssal fish, and so we pulled the deepwater row into the base game to make room for more of them. That’s why there are three more slots for cards than in the other -span titles.

We couldn’t anticipate exactly how popular Finspan would be, but we knew we’d want to create multiple expansions for it. So, I thought carefully from the start about how they would work together. I want each expansion to be easy to learn on its own, and I want them to integrate cleanly with each other without overwhelming the players.

***

Michael has some fun stories in the next few days that delve into the gameplay of Sharks & Reefs, and I wanted to briefly mention a product design element: In the expansion we included a large card tray designed to fit in the Finspan box next to the original tray. The new tray includes 4 slots for stacks of cards and a central area to hold tokens. Our hope in supplying this tray in the first expansion is that it will hold all components for the core game, this expansion, and any future expansions.

You can follow along and get a launch notification on May 13 by clicking here.

***

If you gain value from the 100 articles Jamey publishes on this blog each year, please consider championing this content! You can also listen to posts like this in the audio version of the blog.

Designers prepare new works for the second games festival in Parramatta, Australia

Continue reading on Board Game Beat LLC | W. Eric Martin

Yes, the Magenta line is scratching that game collector itch, making buyer's think “Ah,...

Yes, the Magenta line is scratching that game collector itch, making buyer's think “Ah,...

Yes, the Magenta line is scratching that game collector itch, making buyer's think “Ah,...