Post originally by Frank Branham at 2004-06-17 11:25:17
Converted from Phorums BB System

Shannon's comments on balance were probably incorrect. (Even a handful of plays gives you an imperfect idea of play balance. I know this from my recent experiences playtesting a couple of games.)

However, his comments on randomness seem a little vague and only make sense when combined with the comments about strategy.

Lots of games, when analyzed, are quite random. Carcassonne, as an extreme example, has an outcome which is hugely determined by its very random tile draws.

But, what makes a lot of games "feel" less random is that you can easily see the initial implications of your choices, and later on in the game see outcomes resulting from your choices, and the links between your choices and the outcomes.

Smugglers sticks die rolls and card draws in between the choices and the outcomes. And based on Shannon's description, he seems to think that your choices have little bearing on the outcomes.

Another side effect of that disconnect between choices and outcomes affects long term strategy. If you can no longer closely predict the outcome of a choice, you cannot really formulate a long term plan.

And without a long term plan, there is no real strategy. And if there is no strategy, you feel like you do something, and then something else happens. If the events in the game are unusual and quite different and extremely varied (Think Talisman), the game can go a bit long and not feel terribly repetitive. If the outcomes are similar in nature and "flavor", the game is going to feel repetitive.

I haven't played Smugglers, so all of this is based on ideas than Shannon might have been dancing around in the text of the review. (However, if you've read his epic series on game structure, it becomes a little more obvious.)

Moo
Frank