Anytime you want to start a good argument just ask a group of people to come to an agreement as to what eurogame means.— Steve Jackson in Burgess, 2008a
I have highlighted here a series of traits and qualities that have become identified with the eurogame genre. As I mentioned in the opening paragraphs, however, this analysis is littered with the types of generalizations that make genre identification so subjective. For all of the qualities cited in this chapter,
there are counter- examples. There are examples of eurogames with mechanics of direct conflict, examples with war themes, and those with poor components, lengthy playing times and high doses of luck. However, the qualities listed here together form a point of reference by which hobbyists are able to identify a particular game as falling within the genre. Figure 5.17 provides a summary of these traits.
Components Typically high quality but otherwise similar to other genres of board and table game.
Environment Typically representational when present. Ruleset Typically short and relatively simple.
Rules (Goals) Typically goals of comparative accumulation layered over a wide variety of sub-goals.
Mechanics Typically non-confrontational, with choosing, placement and point-to-point movement common.
Information Typically games of imperfect information.
Theme Typically an emphasis on the historical, with thematic goals that stress individual achievement.
Random Elements Typically present but mitigated. Duration Typically 1–2 Hours
Figure 5.17: Traits of Eurogames (Summary).
Inasmuch as eurogames can be compared to other genres of board and table game (both proprietary and non- proprietary), similarities exist in the common utilization of mechanics, such as point- to- point movement and placement. Having said that, the emphasis upon choice from a limited subset of potential actions, and the absence of mechanics that facilitate direct conflict, can be considered defining traits of the eurogame genre. Coupled with the employment of comparative accumulation as an overarching goal, this shift away from direct conflict gives the eurogame design movement a distinct and recognizable sensibility that highlights construction, development and com- parative achievement over conflict.
It is clear that among the designers of eurogames there is a strong tendency to prioritize the development of innovative and interesting mechanics over that of theme. This shift in perspective is the factor most commonly cited in com- paring mass- market and Anglo- American hobby designs with the European style (Hardin, 2001). On the one hand, the emphasis on theme in Anglo- Amer ican designs is commonly considered upon as enhancing the sense of immer sion in a game, a claim that brings to mind the narrativist argument in video game studies. On the other hand, mechanics are seen as the defining element of a game, with theme merely a trapping to contextualize and simplify player under - standing of the underlying mechanics, a strongly ludological approach.
French game designer Bruno Faidutti explicitly refers to a geo- cultural split in identifying these two aesthetics:
The German school of game design in which you can count some American designers such as Sid Sackson or Alan R. Moon, clearly attach more impor- tance to the system. They feel like the theme is only a practical tool to describe the rules in a clearer and more efficient way — better talk of wheat and wood than of yellow and green cards. This means that the theme is often chosen after the game has been entirely designed, and sometimes doesn’t fit very well, when some rules feel like “out of theme.” This doesn’t prevent such games from being great ... the game systems are good enough to make for a great game experience, but very different from the one you can have with baroque games dripping with theme, like most CCGs or American style war games [2008].
German designer Reiner Knizia perceives the difference in design philosophy as being founded upon a similar division:
In America, the theme is seen as the game where as in the European [sic] the game mechanics and the game system are seen as the game [Knizia in Batty, 2006a].
The emphasis on theme that Faidutti and Knizia draw attention to here is amply evident in the evolution of Anglo- American wargames. Following the popularity of media science fiction during the late 1970s, wargame com- panies were quick to begin publishing games with science fiction and fantasy themes, without significant innovations in the underlying mechanics. The heritage of these games lay within the wargaming hobby, where simulation constitutes “a major part of the aesthetic” (Costikyan, 2009). The principles of conflict simulation that were laid down relatively early in the history of the hobby demanded little mechanical innovation in the shift to new contexts. As boardgamegeek user Leo Zappa describes, there is a reason why innovative mechanics in wargames are not a design priority:
Wargamers, by and large, do not play a game to experience a unique set of mechanics, but rather play a game to experience a unique take on a historical battle or campaign. In fact, use of commonly understood, tried- and- true mechanics (hex map, zones of control, stacking limits, ... etc.) in new games is often considered a virtue by wargamers, as it means they don’t have to waste time learning the fundamentals of how to play the game system, and can focus instead on the unique strategic and tactical aspects of the situation being modeled [2007].
Although not tied to a simulative design model, collectible card games are another example of the thematic emphasis to which Faidutti and Knizia refer. These games typically draw heavily on the core mechanics of Magic:
The Gathering, relying on market differentiation through the application of
themes drawn from popular media licenses. Consequently, theme can be seen to play a significant role in the decision to play one particular game over another. Mark Bordenet (2000, pp. 38–39) identifies the strong attraction of the fantasy theme in Magic: The Gathering and the importance of thematic familiarity in players choosing to play the Star Wars CCG (Darcy et al., 1995). While designers of eurogames develop mechanical systems, perhaps with specific themes in mind, it is often the publishers of these games who decide upon the eventual themes.87Games are brought to market within a particular
cultural context in which both the theme and mechanics may play a role in the success of a given title. As gaming writer Andrew Hardin points out, most hobby gamers consider both the theme and the quality of the underlying mechanics important (2001). The majority of eurogames do have a theme, even if it is not uppermost in the minds of designers. So, despite the apparent prioritization of mechanics over theme in these designs, the latter cannot be dismissed as merely window dressing, especially considering the close rela- tionship between thematic and mechanical goals identified here.
Both the thematic and mechanical goals of the typical eurogame are imbued with the sensibilities of construction, development and accumulation, a sharp contrast to the conflict- driven simulations that form the basis of Anglo- American hobby gaming. This emphasis on individual accomplishment through collaborative competition rather than achievement through direct conflict and elimination arguably implies a more sociably oriented design phi- losophy. The combination of simple rulesets, predictable playing times and loosely applied generic themes of development that typify eurogames are evi- dence of a game form with a particular focus on accessibility. Still, at the time of this writing, eurogames remain a niche genre familiar for the most part only to a dedicated hobbyist audience. It is to this audience, the players, that I turn my attention in the next chapter.