I have previously described a number of informally defined “mechanics”
that are commonly found in eurogames. I also pointed to the fact that, of
7. The Pleasures of Play 157
these, set collection and area control were more accurately defined as types rather than mechanics. If for this reason we omit these two forms, we are left with the common interaction forms of tile placement, auctions, role selection/worker placement and trading/negotiation. Each of these forms of interaction is concerned with gaining ownership of some in- game element, be they a part of the environment, resources or actions. Interesting is the fact that of these four, the mechanic of trading/negotiation stands out as one that is the most direct form of interaction yet is also the only one that is largely collaborative in nature. For this reason I will discuss this mechanic separately, following consideration of the other three forms of interaction.
Tile placement is most commonly concerned with gaining ownership of parts of the game environment. Conflict arises when more than one player seeks ownership of a particular area. Thus, the conflict is decided asynchro-nously through a player’s choice to place a particular tile. This choice may be restricted by the opportunities presented through the game system (e.g., random elements), but the onus on the player is to evaluate his or her own priorities and simultaneously evaluate any other player’s intentions to shape the environment. This evaluative process informs the decision to place a given tile at any specific moment or in a particular location.
Role selection and worker placement operate in a similar manner to tile placement, as players seek to gain ownership of the rights to a particular game action. Again, the decision to select an action is simultaneously informed by the player’s own priorities and the evaluation of the intent of other players.
In both role selection/worker placement and tile placement, the decisions faced by the players revolve around prioritization and the evaluation of intent.
Since role selection and worker placement are typically procedural in nature, as Pulsipher notes, this type of interaction can be characterized as “make the right choice before the other person does” (2009a).
Auctions in games are used as a mechanism for gaining ownership of a wide assortment of in- game elements. In examples where the auction is of the simple “once- around” variety, there is a clear similarity to tile placement and role selection/worker placement in terms of the nature of the decision.
Here the player is called upon to assess the worth of a particular in- game ele-ment without necessarily having any explicit information concerning how much other players value it. In the more common form of English auctions, a player may have more informed knowledge of an object’s worth through the evaluation of other players’ bids but must still balance their own valuation with that of others.
The interactions arising from each of these mechanics are indirect, as any conflict between players is resolved asynchronously. Following this obser-vation, it is now clear why players regard area control as a mechanic rather
158 EU R O G A M E S
than a goal, and, furthermore, why Appelcline considers the form very close to auctions (2005a). The procedural placement of game elements to an area on the board is similar to the three mechanics discussed here since it calls upon players to evaluate the worth of particular areas and, as such, draws on the need for players to read their opponents’ intentions for placement.
Importantly, the mechanics of trading and negotiation typically operate in a distinctly different fashion than do tile placement, auctions, role selec-tion/worker placement and area control. Firstly, trading and negotiation are typically synchronous in that players are simultaneously engaged in the pursuit of an outcome. Secondly, unlike the mechanics discussed above, the perform-ance of negotiation with other players is a collaborative one in which multiple players seek optimal results. Thus, eurogames commonly use indirect inter-action to resolve conflict and direct interinter-action to facilitate collaboration.
Die Siedler von Catan can be used to highlight this distinction between forms of conflict and collaboration. Through the course of the game players build settlements, cities and roads on a hex- based map of limited size. Since players may not encroach on another player’s buildings, there is conflict between players to establish roads and settlements quickly — to gain ownership of the game environment — before the available space is used up. As players take their turns, this conflict is resolved asynchronously with each player seek-ing to “make the right choice before the other person does.” However, since the construction of these game elements requires resources that are unevenly distributed between players, they must negotiate trades in order to build.
Here the interaction is synchronous and therefore direct, but is not a source of conflict but rather an opportunity for collaboration.
In each of the mechanics described above, it is clear that competent gameplay requires the ongoing evaluation of player intent. The ability to assess the importance of in- game elements to another player requires the formation of a mental model of that player’s intention for future actions within the game.
Similarly, evaluating the worth of a particular element in the context of an auction or a trade is dependent upon making assumptions about the value others place upon that item. These skills are some of those to which Pulsipher refers when he describes the psychology of a game. They are certainly an ele-ment of player interaction that survey respondents enjoy:
[I enjoy] the ability to distinguish what other players are doing, and why. See-ing different strategies in action is a lot of fun [R190].
[I enjoy] setting up a strategy; guessing other players strategys [sic]; surprising and misleading other players [R1].
[I enjoy] trying new strategies and coming up with a really good one that wins the game. It usually gets quickly adapted to, forcing you to try more new
7. The Pleasures of Play 159
strategies or to disguise your intentions. I love the move/countermove think-ing in many games. It is very satisfythink-ing to correctly predict what your oppo-nent will do while deceiving them as to your own intentions [R395].
In part, the ability to perform this type of assessment is dependent upon familiarity with the game system. Players use their knowledge of the game system and strategies that can be employed to infer the possible intentions of other players. Since the number of choices presented to players in eurogames is typically limited, and the complexity of the game system relatively low (inasmuch as it can be performed by analysis of the game state), this prediction of intent is far easier than in games such as Chess.
Given Pulsipher’s observation that board games — particularly those in the eurogame genre — have become increasingly less interactive and more focused on individual achievement, it is interesting to note that enthusiasts of the genre place such a great degree of importance on the presence of game interaction. The suggestion here is that players simply value the presence of interaction more than the amount of interaction a game offers. While titles such as Puerto Rico, Die Fürsten von Florenz and Goa are exemplary of this design style, none are entirely devoid of interaction. As Greg Aleknevicus observes, board games without any interaction are extremely rare (2002).17As a number of survey respondents observe, without some degree of interaction there really is very little game:
I’m not adverse to multi- player solitaire; however, it can get boring when completely unmitigated — I would say that being able to affect each other is what makes a game truly fun and dynamic [R640].
I enjoy an intellectual competition against another person, or multiple people.
The puzzle- solving aspect is key, so while I enjoy games with high player interaction, I can also be happy with low- interaction games. But some interac-tion is required, or else one is playing against a set of rules and not a person [R447].
While the importance of some form of interaction is held to be a con-stitutive element of games in many scholarly definitions,18it is important to note that players here are referring specifically to interaction with other players rather than with the game system:
I like games with lots of interaction between the players (whether direct or indirect). You want to play versus your friends, and not just versus the system.
I don’t want to be playing solo in a multi- player affair [R35].
I enjoy games where I get to directly interact with other players. Games with auctions, negotiations, trading, bargaining are my favorites [R192].
[I enjoy] player interaction. Whether we are working together or against each other having everyone involved through as many phases of play as possible is most important to me [R262].
160 EU R O G A M E S
The best games are ones that require a good amount of discussion and interac-tion among players but not in excess.... If I wanted to play a game without talking to people I’d have stayed home and played it online [R145].
While eurogames typically offer little opportunity for direct conflict, they operate to promote social interaction between players on two levels.
Firstly, the asynchronous mechanics that focus on gaining ownership call upon players to carefully evaluate their opponents’ intent. This form of interaction shifts the focus of play away from the game space and towards other players.
As Parlett describes of modern games generally, the play is centered “above the board, in the minds of the players themselves” (1999, p. 7). Secondly, through synchronous interactions, such as trade, players collaborate in the pursuit of mutually beneficial outcomes. It is clear that for survey respondents this kind of stimulated and mediated interaction remains an important factor in their enjoyment of specific titles.