{"id":3756,"date":"2003-04-23T12:00:00","date_gmt":"2003-04-23T10:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.westpark-gamers.de\/blog\/2003\/04\/23\/spielbericht-und-review-vom-23-04-2003-2\/"},"modified":"2003-04-23T12:00:00","modified_gmt":"2003-04-23T10:00:00","slug":"spielbericht-und-review-vom-23-04-2003-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.westpark-gamers.de\/blog\/2003\/04\/23\/spielbericht-und-review-vom-23-04-2003-2\/","title":{"rendered":"Spielbericht und Review vom 23.04.2003"},"content":{"rendered":"

Spielbericht und Review vom 23.04.2003<\/h2>\n

Autor<\/b>: Walter, Moritz<\/p>\n

am Tisch<\/b>: Andrea, Hans, Aaron, Peter, Walter, Moritz<\/p>\n

auf dem Tisch<\/b>: The Roaring 20’s, Das Tal der Mammuts<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. <\/a>The Roaring 20’s<\/a><\/b>\n
    deutsche Version<\/a><\/div>\n

    \n\"The Once again Moritz unwrapped a new
    \n acquisition, and with his own special talent he began to translate the rules of the
    \n game from English into understandable German off the cuff. Unfortunately he did not
    \n know the answers to the usual detailed WPG questions about the rules and had himself
    \n to struggle through the description. After 20 minutes we had all made our way
    \n through the four printed pages of rules and had a vague notion of what was in store
    \n for us.<\/p>\n

    The game is set in an American city – the decade is of no great consequence – where crime
    \nsyndicates are in full control. All the players are crime bosses; each one must transport
    \nhis loot, expressed as a sum of money, from the scene of the crime to his own hideout.
    \nEach player draws a card at random, which gives the site of his hideout: this is his
    \ndestination. Each one draws three more cards, which give the possible locations for his
    \ncrime. He can choose which one of these is the starting point for his assignment. He
    \nshould of course choose the one most convenient for his destination.<\/p>\n

    Each player has a car to transport the haul: he can drive this across the map of the
    \ncity in full view of all the others, with a maximum of ten squares per move.<\/p>\n

    Each player in turn takes over the role of Police Chief and is thus in charge of a fleet
    \nof ten police cars with which he should prevent the mobsters from bringing home their
    \nloot. Each police car can move up to eight squares in one turn. The mobsters thus have a
    \nsmall advantage regarding how far their vehicles can travel, whereas the police clearly
    \nhave the weight of numbers on their side.<\/p>\n

    \"TheAdmittedly one police car alone does not pose
    \n a problem to a criminal: he can drive past it without any restrictions. It takes two
    \n police cars, piled up together on one single square, to create a barrier which can
    \n not be passed. To put a mobster completely out of action requires as many as four
    \n police cars which have to be moved to the area immediately surrounding their target.
    \n The law enforcers thus have a very hard time in putting all the criminals out of
    \n action. In short, three quarters of the mobsters will on average be able to bring
    \n home the loot without problems.<\/p>\n

    But which ones are going to get caught? That depends on the one hand on the starting
    \npositions, which are scattered across the area of the city more or less at random, but on
    \nthe other hand also on the personal relationships with the police, who are not above
    \ntaking bribes. Before each round, each crime boss can donate an amount with which he can
    \nobtain the goodwill of the police force. This provides the Police Chief with some
    \nconsolation for the fact that he will not be making a profit from crime in this round –
    \nlive and let live. This bribery does not however provide a guarantee of freedom from
    \npunishment.<\/p>\n

    So far, so good: it sounds like a reasonable game, worth a rating above average.<\/p>\n

    But we now come to the decisive point.<\/p>\n

    The journey, which each mobster must drive from the location of the crime to his hideout,
    \nis completely random, in terms both of length and of the circumstances in the city.
    \nSomeone who has drawn the right cards needs only to move along three squares and has
    \nreached home on his first move. Someone who is less fortunate must drive right across the
    \ncity and has quite possibly no chance against ten police cars. The reward earned for
    \nsuccess, that is, the value of the spoils, is also random. With good luck an untroubled
    \n3-square journey can bring in 25,000 dollars; but with bad luck a player must struggle
    \nagainst the entire police force of the city for the sake of a sum only one tenth as big.
    \nWhat was the author thinking of when he dreamed up this principle?<\/p>\n

    In order to cover up to some extent the lack of logic in these developments, each player
    \nalso has two event cards, with which he can influence the result of the plundering. For
    \nexample, you can get out of jail for free, should you have been caught by the police.
    \nThis is worth at least 1000 dollars, but only if you have landed in jail. Or you can
    \nclear a police car out of your way. This is worth something, should the police be hot on
    \nyour heels, but the card is worthless for the majority of successful criminals. However,
    \nwith the aid of a super-card at the end of the round you can carry off from an opponent
    \nhis complete booty which he has just brought home safely. This can be worth as much as
    \n25,000 dollars. This means the rival who has been taken by surprise also loses 25,000
    \ndollars, making a net difference of 50,000 dollars. This is around ten percent of the
    \ntotal amount of money in circulation, or the entire proceeds from seven rounds of average
    \ncriminal activity!<\/p>\n

    Does it make sense to be able to take a hard-earned prize away form a competing crime
    \nboss – a haul which perhaps he has successfully brought home by means of clever deceptive
    \ntactics – just because one happens to hold the right event card? And also because the
    \nopponent has not happened to draw a card with which he can ward off this hijack?
    \nIsn’t this completely frustrating for one of the two of them? Does the author of the
    \ngame really think that unpredictable chaos can on its own generate a good basis for a
    \ngame?<\/p>\n

    These are questions of principle: what are the reasons for playing and what expectations
    \ndoes each player have when he sits down for an evening of games? I have my own decided
    \npoint of view on this, which goes as follows:<\/p>\n

    If I am playing a game of intelligence, then, should I act more intelligently than the
    \nothers, I want to see an advantage. In a memory game I want to be able to make capital
    \nout of my powers of memory, in a game of negotiations out of my diplomatic skills, in a
    \ngame of pure luck out of the favour of fortune, and in a game of combat out of my
    \nexperience in battle, my lion-hearted bravery or my aptitude for tactical lamentation.
    \nWhenever I decide to play a game, I want before I start to be able to assess which of my
    \nqualities as a player are going to be in demand.<\/p>\n

    What does “The Roaring 20’s” have to offer in this respect? Unfairness in
    \nthe difficulty of the task to be accomplished, a lack of logic in the respective prizes
    \nto be won, randomness in the fight against crime on behalf of the authorities,
    \nunpredictability in the asynchronous way one’s competitors can have an effect. What
    \ndoes the game teach us? That the world is malicious and corrupt, that crime usually does
    \npay, that neither planning nor skill are rewarded, and that the police are always on the
    \nside of those who have the most dollars.<\/p>\n

    As we now happen to be discussing this subject in the forum<\/a> of the
    \nWPG: this game is “politically incorrect” in the extreme – this is also
    \napparent in the accompanying description of the various assignments to be undertaken, in
    \nthe way the author without any scruples suggests all kinds of crimes of burglary and
    \ntheft, and cynically encourages bumping off security guards or stringing up one’s
    \nrivals.<\/p>\n\n\n
    View\/add comments here\"\"\/