What BOARD GAME(s) have you been playing?

Michael Barnes wrote: Obviously it's an idea that I'm developing myself, I don't expect anyone to suddenly change definitions or anything like that.

The problem I have with "theme" in board game discussion is that it tends to stop at pictures, nomenclature and flavor text unless there is very specific conceptual theme built into the mechanics. Which is not common.

Playing older Knizia games in particular really made me rethink what theme is and where it actually happens in a design...all of this talk for years about "pasted on" theme in T&E or even Through the Desert looks really dumb when you realize that there are deep THEMES there that are not as superficial as anything in the games widely regarded as "dripping with theme". Talisman doesn't have much of a theme, for example.

"Motif" is actually closer, I think, to what people generally think is "theme". "Context" is a player in there somewhere too, as Gregarius suggested.

Based on the definition, in case 1 if there were a game about this meeting for world peace then the commonly used "theme" would indicate that the game and it's mechanics would be about the meeting itself- who was there, what they did, how it was conducted. Not _what the meeting is about_, which would be the need for world peace.

Case 2 makes an argument for what I just said about Knizia...but I think setting and motif more accurately distinguish that kind of more superficial structure from what the game is really about.

Of course, most games aren't really about much anyway, so there's that too.

By these definitions to their logical conclusion the "theme" of Tigris and Euphrates is taking wooden blocks and cardboard chits and aligning them on a flat piece of cardboard.

You're taking the traditional definition of "theme" as it relates to board games and relabeling it motif, and taking the traditional definition of "mechanisms" and relabeling it theme. The Lost Cities argument being the perfect example. The tension of where the 10 is comes straight from the inter working of the game, that literally IS the game, that's why that game is fun. It's fun lies in the way you interact with the rules.

Talisman is fun because of the way you interact with the pictures and text. Almost all of the tension in the game comes from whether or not you can roll the right number when you need it, that's not very "fun" on it's own, but I love the idea of running up against some huge dragon that should kill me in one bite and rolling my six to survive, not because I rolled the six, but because I imagine the gear I'm carrying helping me survive, or the dragon tripping and falling on my sword, or whatever.

There is nothing about the Indiana Jones theme/motif that ties into that 10 card in Lost Cities.

You better be careful, I might send you Fucking Reef Encounter instead of these Thunderstone cards...it would be for your own good.

You have a good point about player response in there- what the player is reacting to, whether it's a rules feature, process or the superficial, "executive" illustrations or text. You're also making my point above about how the story/narrative arises from THE PLAYER, not necessarily the card showing a +1 sword.

But the themes of T&E are most definitely not what you described, that's process. Which I think is a different layer of a design, and it's something distinct from mechanisms as well.

As for the beard scratching comments, having any kind of discussion about board games beyond "I had fun" or "I didn't have fun" is beard scratching as far as I'm concerned. But we can strive for more, to talk about games in a more complete and worldly way that betters analysis and understanding of why we like the games we like. I've always done that, shouldn't be surprising at this point.

Michael Barnes wrote: As for the beard scratching comments, having any kind of discussion about board games beyond "I had fun" or "I didn't have fun" is beard scratching as far as I'm concerned. But we can strive for more, to talk about games in a more complete and worldly way that betters analysis and understanding of why we like the games we like. I've always done that, shouldn't be surprising at this point.

Sometimes you just have to poke the hive to get a response.

But I do agree with some of your premise, that theme has become diluted, much like elegant had become diluted for example. But I don't agree that it is something that needs to be redefined. Sharpened and refocused I'd argue. Reapplied the way it was years back before the focus shifted to art/production/presentation and other surface elements.

OK, this is some total rubbish.

If a game like T+E, which is putting little tiles on a fairly nondescript map is NOT an abstract, and "drips theme" then the world has finally cracked and I'm going to be hiding in a cave somewhere.

Theme is the "overarching idea" of any subject. The setting is where it takes place. Using those two metrics with which to judge if a game has is "thematic", meaning that the game's play has a direct, visceral relation to its theme and setting, you could not possibly make an argument that T+E is a "thematic game". If you don't fully engage with the game's theme and setting via the game play, then the theme and setting are irrelevant; painted on so that it doesn't end up with all the other YERTZ-type abstracts that have a very limited market.

Puerto Rico, for all its dullness, Agricola for all its tedium, are both very thematic in that the play is directly related to the theme and setting. For a proof of this, just remember how many people (myself included) debate about how the game is patently racist as the game is essentially reliving using slave labor for European profiteering. This conversation NEVER would've happened if the game didn't have a strong tie between the play and the game. I mean, it would be just another cube pusher where the little brown cubes would not induce uncomfortable feelings of being a slave trader.

T+E, however, has almost zero relation and you can't "feel" anything. It's far more like Chess in that regard, as when I play Chess, I'm certainly not thinking, "What would my liege, King Henry, have done? Pull the rooks (artillery) forward for better position, or send in my armored cavalry (knights) to mop up their infantry (pawns)?"

What is Ameritrash?

What is Theme?

When will Knizia make another good game?

These are questions to which we may never have definitive answers.

I'm less in favor of redefining something than I am broadening the definition. I largely agree with what Barnes is saying, but I'm not really on the same page when we're trying to change terminology. That's almost always a losing battle, especially in a field where there really isn't anyone who talks about games professionally.

But I'm definitely really interested in expanding what we mean when we talk about theme, and I think that's where this whole conversation has merit. It absolutely extends further than artwork and flavor text, but that doesn't mean that theme cannot be expressed that way too. Is Lost Cities a pretty abstract game? Of course it is. Do the mechanics of risk and at least work with a game that is about funding expeditions to ancient finds? I think so, even if it doesn't work on an immersive level.

Maybe immersion is more what we're really talking about here. How well does a game immerse you in what's going on? A theme can still work without doing that, but it might not grab at the emotions in the same way.

Yeah, I'm not necessarily getting behind this change in terminology but I completely understand what he's talking about. It's why Twilight struggle is the most immersive (I'll use San's term) game of all time---it has excellent flavor text, a realized setting, etc but then mechanics and play also completely reinforce everything about the setting as well (brinksmanship, paranoia, etc).

Gary Sax wrote: Yeah, I'm not necessarily getting behind this change in terminology

It's been floating around for the past three years here, and I've been waiting for it to sort itself out. The fact that it hasn't (appears to be getting more confused, not less) leads me to think that we're not onto anything yet.

Fifty says "dripping" goes the distance and "theme" doesn't. Gamers love trite epithets.

S.

Yeah, I've been thinking about the evolution of the theme debate:

AT vs Euro
German vs Euro
Pasted On vs Immersive
Executive vs Conceptual
Rules First vs Theme First

VonTush wrote: Yeah, I've been thinking about the evolution of the theme debate:

AT vs Euro
German vs Euro
Pasted On vs Immersive
Executive vs Conceptual
Rules First vs Theme First

Don't forget Fun First, the term that any reviewer can use to push a game that is mechanically shitty but is a blast to play.