Episode 107 AP Table Talk: Rondel
AP Table Talk: Rondel
Episode Summary:
In this episode of AP Table Talk, hosts Brian and Dave Eng focus on rondel games, where players move along a circular track to take actions. Dave introduces "Patchwork" as a significant game he played early in his relationship. They discuss games like "Sabika," highlighting rondel mechanics and unique elements. They mention thematic considerations, player count dynamics, tie-breakers, and variations in game mechanics. Dave and Brian also touch on games with changing rondel layouts and explore twists in mechanics, such as action resolution prior to moving. They conclude by reflecting on the accessibility and strategic choices offered by rondel mechanics.
Brian Eng:
Hello and welcome to AP Table Talk, a podcast where we explore board games and what makes them interesting to us. My name is Brian and I'm joined by someone who has to hold back his awesomeness so as not to intimidate people. My co-host and cousin Dave.
Dave Eng:
That is me. How's it going? I'm Dave. Good to be back, Brian. Good to be back.
Brian Eng:
Yeah, it's been a little bit since we did our last episode.
Dave Eng:
I know.
Brian Eng:
A little bit of a run there. I guess it's summertime when we're recording this. So life keeps us busy.
Dave Eng:
Life is getting in the way. It is doing stuff.
Brian Eng:
Yeah.
Dave Eng:
That's the best way I can describe it.
Brian Eng:
Yeah. I know you were up camping. Do you bring some board games during you're camping?
Dave Eng:
I did. I did bring some board games.
Brian Eng:
Nice. I would expect nothing less from you
Dave Eng:
Not having to do with this episode, but you remember our grid coverage episode a while ago?
Brian Eng:
Yes.
Dave Eng:
I brought this game that's a solo kind of puzzle game called Genius Square. I don't know if you've seen it before, but I got addicted to it. It's like grid coverage incarnate, but it is using polyominoes, like Tetris pieces. It is very fun. I brought it for my friend's kids, but it was one of the games that we were playing for most of the weekend.
Brian Eng:
Oh cool.
Dave Eng:
You could play it in seconds.
Brian Eng:
Nice, nice. Yeah, I like those short ones. Especially for something where you're out camping too, that's definitely what you want. Just something short and quick, simple.
Dave Eng:
No cards either. So everything could potentially get wet and it's totally fine.
Brian Eng:
Nice. I bring Hive for a lot of that stuff. It doesn't generally get played, but I can just throw it in a bag because I've got my little Hive pocket.
Dave Eng:
I did bring Bohnanza with me, but we didn't get it on it. But that ironically has only cards.
Brian Eng:
Yes, I've played that one. I didn't like the whole having to keep the cards in order because I immediately mentally want to reorganize the cards in my hand.
Dave Eng:
Got to fight that feeling.
Brian Eng:
That rule. Yeah, I know. That rule just messes it up for me. But yeah, so what is our mechanic for this episode?
Dave Eng:
All right, so we are going to cover rondels for this episode. Brian, do you mind giving us the personal overview on rondel?
Brian Eng:
All right, yeah, yeah. My first thoughts on the rondel mechanics. So when I think of a classical rondel mechanic, I am thinking of generally a circle kind of cut into slices and you have your piece. Each player has their piece and you move a certain number of spaces, like one to three spaces around there. Each space corresponds to an action or maybe resources that you get. I would almost classify it as a subset of action selection.
Dave Eng:
Yeah, I wrote that down in some of my notes before. I'm going to read the definition for rondel directly off a board game which is where we're taking this from.
Brian Eng:
Go for it.
Dave Eng:
So you're close here, Brian. It says here "the available actions are represented as pie wedges in a circle. Each player has one or more tokens on rondel's wedges. On their turn, they may move their token around the rondel and perform the action indicated by the wedge where they stop. It's typically more costly to move further around the rondel.” So like you said, Brian, a lot of action selections are in here, but sort of like a linear action selection. We talked a little bit about this with Mancala, but I think rondel is different enough to stand on its own.
Brian Eng:
Yeah, definitely. I agree. Okay, well we'll get into our first segment here where we talk about some examples.
Dave Eng:
Major examples.
Brian Eng:
Should we do our roll for initiative?
Dave Eng:
So if you are listening to this episode for the first time and you're not familiar with AP Table Talk, Brian and I both have D20s and we're going to roll them, and whoever rolls high as we'll get initiative and we'll lead first. So Brian, I will roll when you're ready.
Brian Eng:
All right, I'm ready.
Dave Eng:
3, 2, 1, roll. I have 14.
Brian Eng:
I got eight.
Dave Eng:
All right, so I will lead off.
Brian Eng:
Go ahead.
Dave Eng:
All right, so I'm going to start off with the first one for major examples and the one we agreed upon ahead of time, Brian, was I'm going to talk about my most noteworthy biggest rondel game in my opinion. That's right?
Brian Eng:
Yep.
Dave Eng:
Okay, so I'm going to have to go with Patchwork because this is the one you recommended to me. Remember when we first started playing board games. It's not ironically, the very first game I played with my girlfriend at the time, now wife on our second date, and I basically said during that second date, I was like, "We're going to play a board game. You probably have never played it before, but this is going to determine the future of our relationship right now. No pressure, but we got to play this Patchwork game."
Brian Eng:
It's definitely a good two player game.
Dave Eng:
Yeah, it's a solid two player.
Brian Eng:
My wife still enjoys that one.
Dave Eng:
Yeah, I have a couple of games I'm always playing on BGA, and they're like Splendor, Azul, and Patchwork, just because they're very easy to get on the table. So it's noteworthy for me because of that story with my girlfriend, now wife. It's also one of the first modern games that I got introduced to and Brian introduced that to me. Like you said, Brian, it's a really easy two player game to get players into. Unlike other games where it's best at three or four players, this one is strictly two players. I think a really good asset to this game is that the theme is so benign. I feel like you'll be hard-pressed to find someone that's like, "I do not want to make a quilt right now." It's like everyone wants to make a quilt when you're playing Patchwork.
Brian Eng:
Get those buttons away from me.
Dave Eng:
What I think is really cool about it, and we talked a little bit about this in the past episode, about the polynomial shapes, it's still thinky, it's accessible, it's available, and I think it's a really great way to get people into the hobby without really overwhelming them. That's really why I like Patchwork. That's my number one. How about you?
Brian Eng:
Yeah, actually, and before we move on, you told me an interesting anecdote about the development of Patchwork. Do you want to recount that story again?
Dave Eng:
Oh yeah. So Patchwork, I think this is the story you're referring to, Brian. It's designed by Uwe Rosenberg who is a big name in modern tabletop games.
Brian Eng:
Not really known for simpler, smaller games like this.
Dave Eng:
No, no, definitely not known for that. But I had read that UA Rosenberg also designed Feast for Odin and Patchwork was a auxiliary mini-game or mechanic that he had designed originally for Feast for Odin. And just so happened he wanted to continue developing it and it just became its own separate game, enough to be able to stand on hiss own brow. Was that the anecdote you were talking about?
Brian Eng:
Yeah, I didn't remember exactly all the details, so that's why I wanted you to recount. But yeah, I just thought that was really cool that this little ... and I consider it a pretty popular game. It's popular enough to have been themed a couple times. Yeah, I definitely think that's up there. That's a good choice for a noteworthy rondel game.
Dave Eng:
Yeah, how about you?
Brian Eng:
All right, so I know we had just had a discussion after our last episode that we were going to try to limit ourselves and keep our examples to one game each per section. But I do have a quick runner up that I wanted to put in this section, but I didn't actually pick it, which is ... I always get the pronunciation messed up on this one. I think that one of the biggest rondel games is Teotihuacan.
Dave Eng:
Brian Eng:
City of Gods, Teotihuacan. I do think that's an extremely popular game that uses the rondel mechanic. I know you're not crazy about it. I would say it's kind of middling for me as well. It's interesting, but it's definitely not up there. So I just wanted to put that one in. I definitely think it is one of the bigger rondel games, but my choice for the biggest one that I think of is Great Western Trail, which is kind of an interesting way that a rondel is included in that. The rondel is kind of the track that you actually move along. So in Great Western Trail, you're rancher, getting your cattle and delivering it. The place has always escaped me, but I'm sure you'll remember.
Dave Eng:
It's all-
Brian Eng:
Where you're delivering it to.
Dave Eng:
... cities in the Great Western Cattle Drive.
Brian Eng:
But yeah, as you cycle around, you're adding more spaces to the path that you go around, which is your rondel essentially. So I thought that was really neat, but that's definitely one of my favorites and also I think is a pretty popular rondel game.
Dave Eng:
I remember the first time we played that, Brian, that was at a PAX East. I'm forgetting the year, but I remember we had taken it out of the library and we're like, we're going to play great Western Trail. It's highly rated, we're going to play it, teach it to ourselves. I think that first game, including the teach, took us six hours to play.
Brian Eng:
Yeah, I believe we came back from eating lunch or something, or was that one of the ones we did first?
Dave Eng:
I think it might've been right after lunch. We played it.
Brian Eng:
I think it was after lunch and we essentially played it and then we're like, I'm starving.
Dave Eng:
Yeah. It's like, oh, it's like nine o'clock already. But I don't regret it and I think the BGA adaptation of it is really good, but it's just a lot going on.
Brian Eng:
There's a lot of setup too, and I know there's a second edition now that incorporates a lot. I've heard it also streamline some of it. So I wouldn't mind trying that out at some point. I don't know when, but I do enjoy that game and I think the BGA’s version is a good way to try it since you don't have to do as much of the bookkeeping.
Dave Eng:
I would say the same thing for Teotihuacán that you brought up before. I think I would only play the BGA version.
Brian Eng:
Yeah, I've never played the actual one but, or no ... yeah, no, we haven't played or we haven't played it together.
Dave Eng:
I played the actual one in person and I think it has really great table presence. It gets people interested in the game, but I just don't want to be involved with the setup because it takes a lot.
Brian Eng:
Yeah. I know they just kickstarted a deluxified version of it.
Dave Eng:
Yeah, I saw that on Kickstarter.
Brian Eng:
But yeah, it's a big game and don't know how much it would hit the table. It wouldn't be a first choice for me.
Dave Eng:
Right, right.
Brian Eng:
All right, so we'll move on to the first rondel game that you played. You can start us off on this one as well.
Dave Eng:
All right, it goes back to me. So it's the same game I brought up for the first one, which is Patchwork, because I was really familiar with board game mechanics before. So I got introduced to Patchwork, which also had the rondel mechanic. Like we brought up before when I was talking about Genius Square, it has grid coverage, which is I think a really positive form of feedback for players because you're covering those different parts of the grid. Patchwork is in theme too because, again, you're making a quilt out of these different patches. Something though that I forgot to bring up before, Brian, that I think is pretty cool about Patchwork is that it has unorthodox player turns, because really you are spending two types of resources to buy those patches. You're spending buttons which are your currency, and you're also spending time around the time track because if you've never played Patchwork before, if you're behind on the time track, you get to go again until you have passed the other player's marker.
So I think that is enough of a difference for a lot of people who have not played a lot of modern tabletop games to see something like cool and iterative that's based on this particular game. I think what's also new to me overall about Patchwork is that you can still win having a negative score. You just can't be as negative as your opponent. So the unorthodox turns, I think the relatively low scoring for Patchwork are all cool unique things that I didn't really see in other games. So my number two example for first rondel game for me is going to be Patchwork.
Brian Eng:
All right, nice. And that's great because, since you use the same game, that offsets me doing two games in the first segment there. So for first rondel game for myself, I also picked Patchwork. So Patchwork was 2014 that it came out. Now you mentioned that I introduced or I suggested that game to you, which is odd because I'm wondering where I played it then, because generally we play games together at PAX or you discover them first.
Dave Eng:
I think you had just told me ... we were talking about two player games. It might've been the first PAX we went to. You remember when you introduced Hive to me?
Brian Eng:
Okay. Okay. Yeah, actually you know what? I guess there were a few smaller games. I definitely still kind of hunt down the two player games to play with my wife. I don't have as regular of a gaming group or at least I hadn't had one for a long time, but you were able to kind of have your groups more often. So I was always on the hunt for those two player games.
Dave Eng:
It was.
Brian Eng:
Now also you've talked about Patchwork twice now, so most of the points that I think I would talk about, I believe you've covered. I do like that balance of time and earning the buttons. I think that's generally the part of the puzzle I'm usually looking at the most that I like. So the only thing I'll add is what time track do you like better? The squared one or the round one?
Dave Eng:
I almost exclusively use the squared one because I find it easier to track both-
Brian Eng:
I agree.
Dave Eng:
... in person and also online.
Brian Eng:
Yes. I do not like the round one.
Dave Eng:
I don't like the round one at all. Brian, I also don't know if you played on BGA. You know they have the Americana version of Patchwork?
Brian Eng:
Yes, I saw that.
Dave Eng:
I feel like that is also ... it just hurts my eyes to look at it because there's so many contrasting colors. It may be better for people that have low visibility or need greater contrast, but I like the original version with the square track. That's for me.
Brian Eng:
I know there's a Halloween one, but I haven't seen what the looks like.
Dave Eng:
That one's even more contrasty than the Americana version.
Brian Eng:
Yeah, I just like the original.
Dave Eng:
Yeah, me too. Why mess with something that works. I still play the, I call it vanilla Patchwork.
Brian Eng:
Yes. All right. Okay, well that's our first rondel games that we've played. Let's move on to your favorite rondel game.
Dave Eng:
Okay, so number three for me, favorite rondel game. Brian, I don't think you have this on your list. I'd be surprised if you do because this is, I would say my favorite rondel game, as much as I played Patchwork. I brought this back to the table with my group. We were doing some research for this episode and I'm going to have to say Space Park. Have you ever played Space Park?
Brian Eng:
I have not played Space Park.
Dave Eng:
So Space Park is a ... I think it's as pure of a rondel game as you can get. It's designed by Henry Audubon who designed PARKS, Trails, and Kingswood. I don't know if you played any of those games, but if any listeners have-
Brian Eng:
PARKS Sounds familiar.
Dave Eng:
Yeah, PARKS is-
Brian Eng:
That's a newer one, right?
Dave Eng:
Yeah, that's Keymaster. That was also in Kickstarter. I did not back it then, but I believe some people in my group did. So I did not back it. But the interesting part about all these games is that there is some element, I would say in everything but PARKS and Trails, where it's more like Tokaido where you're moving along a road. Everything else involves some sort of rondel. So I think this is Henry's go-to mechanic. The reason I really like this is because, like his other games, Space Park is about visiting parks but in space. So not national parks. PARKS like that would exist on different planets or moons and everything else.
So you're controlling these different space ships, you're going to different location or wherever the spaceships are, you resolve that location, which is get different types of crystals or turning crystals during experience points or anything else. Then you move the spaceship to the next available spot that's not occupied by another spaceship. So why I really like it is really cool art, really cool theme and the turns are so fast. When you look at this game you're like, okay, it looks pretty cool, let's get it at a table. But it's snappy. I would say that I could probably play a four player game of Space Park in the same amount of time I could play a game of Patchwork. That's why I like it.
Brian Eng:
Oh wow, okay. Yeah, I definitely like turns to move quickly. All right. So my favorite rondel game, I was on the fence on this one because I think it kind of straddles the definition of rondel, at least the one that we spoke about at the beginning of the episode. Now it is classified as rondel on BGG and I think I would call it a rondel game. I don't know if we played this together. It's one that I kick started. The designer is Jonny Pac. It's Coloma.
Dave Eng:
Oh, Coloma
Brian Eng:
Have you played Coloma?
Dave Eng:
I'm familiar with it but I've never played it before.
Brian Eng:
Okay, So Coloma, it's about trying to strike it rich in the California frontiers gold mining. You have a few different ways. It kind of has multiple paths to earning gold or victory points. The way that the action selection works with the rondel and that one is that there are five spaces and each space has a regular action and they call it a boon action. They have this neat little piece that kind of goes around the rondel that kind of covers a space up and changes what one of the actions are. They use magnets, which everyone kind of gravitates towards that.
Dave Eng:
Oh, that's cool.
Brian Eng:
It uses a magnet instead of those plastic hinges into the board. But the catch is for this one, instead of moving sequentially around the rondel, everybody does a simultaneous blind choice of the space they want to go to. So they're numbered one to five, you have your little action selector, everyone picks shows at the same time. You put your little guy on your action and the action that has the most people on it gets a bust.
Dave Eng:
Oh, okay.
Brian Eng:
It has another piece on the little turntable that covers the boom action. So if your space has the most people on it, you do not get the boon action. So you kind of want to go where not everybody's going. It's a neat little twist on the mechanic, but I like the simultaneous action selection on that one. Then once everyone's chosen, it goes around each of the spaces and everyone gets to do their actions or whatever.
Dave Eng:
So if I'm understanding correctly, you want to choose an action that you don't think everyone else will choose because you don't want it to be the most popular.
Brian Eng:
Obviously it's situational, but generally speaking to get the best action economy, that's what you want to do. But there's certain times when everyone just wants this because that's the most efficient. So you can think of it that way as you don't want to get penalized, or some people will think of it as well, you're only getting that main action and, if you happen to pick the place where not everybody goes, you'll get a bonus action.
Dave Eng:
Oh, I see. Okay.
Brian Eng:
That one's interesting. They just recently put an expansion out so I backed that as well. I've got a few plays of that of Coloma in. I'd like to hit the table more. I might bring that to my gaming group when it's my choice next, but I kind of forgot about it until I was looking up stuff for this episode.
Dave Eng:
Funny story by Jonny Pac. I think I told you this, Brian, I was doing a BGG trade and Jonny Pac messaged me. He had a game that I had that he wanted and he had a game that I wanted, and I saw that his username was some variation in Jonny Pac. I was like, "Are you the same Jonny Pac that designs these other games that I have?" I forget, I have to turn around.
Brian Eng:
Was it Merchants Cove or something like that?
Dave Eng:
No.
Brian Eng:
One of his bigger ones. Fistful of Meeples?
Dave Eng:
I can't think of it right now. I have to look for it, but oh it was Lions of Lydia. It's like a bag building game. But I remember I messaged him and we traded and I was like, oh this is the first time I've ever traded with another well-known designer. So it was pretty rad to be able to trade with him.
Brian Eng:
Nice.
Dave Eng:
But I had a question, Brian, about Coloma. Two questions. One, how do you resolve ties if there's a tie for most popular, and two, can you play the game two players?
Brian Eng:
You can play the game two players. There's even a solo. So they have a kind of an automated player I believe for two player, and he basically just randomly picks a space to kind of gunk up the rondel a little bit. I believe ties, that piece that goes around that changes the actions, it'll block the one closest to wherever that is going next or something to that effect.
Dave Eng:
Oh okay. All right.
Brian Eng:
But yeah, it was definitely a neat mechanic. I do like the game a lot, but it's definitely using a rondel in a unique way that I haven't seen done before.
Dave Eng:
Yeah, that sounds kind of cool. I know you like blind bidding too, so that seems like it's right up your alley.
Brian Eng:
I always like blind bidding.
Dave Eng:
Cool.
Brian Eng:
Okay.
Dave Eng:
All right, so major examples.
Brian Eng:
That wraps up our examples there. So we'll move on to our likes and dislikes.
Dave Eng:
Yeah, sure.
Brian Eng:
Of the rondel mechanic. Oh yeah, we'll do our roll here.
Dave Eng:
All right, so we're going to roll again for initiative. We have two D 20.
Brian Eng:
All right, I'm ready.
Dave Eng:
So in 3, 2, 1 roll.
Brian Eng:
I got 18.
Dave Eng:
Got nine. So you go ahead.
Brian Eng:
Okay, so we'll start off with some likes. Okay. So the first I have is I like that it creates some tension, and by that I mean, by limiting what your available options are, it creates that tension. It makes the choice you're making a little more meaningful. So I always like that kind of ramping up the tension. You know that, okay, well I can only pick out of these three and I have to make it kind of count. So I definitely like that about the mechanic.
Dave Eng:
Nice. Do you have a specific game that you wanted to reference from?
Brian Eng:
I was thinking I've only played it once. We backed it together. Tiny Epic Pirates.
Dave Eng:
Yes, but it's still in shrink for me.
Brian Eng:
You should give it a shot. It's pretty good. We'll probably talk about that game more in variance, but that one definitely I would say anything using that classic definition of rondel that we talked about, you're going to have that kind of increased tension because of your limited choices.
Dave Eng:
Right. That is somewhat related to my like. Did you have something else prior or should I go from my like?
Brian Eng:
You can go ahead and then I'll do it after you. We'll just go back and forth.
Dave Eng:
So it's somewhat related to yours. I called mine Cleaner Decision Framework. Again, since I listed Space Park as my favorite rondel game, I like that there's only three spaceships and it's on this very limited modular board. So I think you would like that aspect of this game too because you can set up however you'd like, and it's basically just like these are the three things that you can do on your turn. It may not be a lot. There is a mechanic that's involved later that allows you to move some of the spaceships prior to you resolving your action if none of those are ideal. But I like the fact that when it's my turn, it's like, okay, well I can get two yellow crystals, one purple crystal or one blue crystal. That's it. That's it.
Brian Eng:
Right.
Dave Eng:
And then I move the spaceship and my turn is over and it goes on to the next person. I like that cleaner decision framework. I think it makes the game much more approachable for people that are not used to modern tabletop games. But even as an experienced player, I still like having those very clear decisions I can make on my turn.
Brian Eng:
Actually, my next like kind of relates to that in terms of talking about, okay, well you have those three options. I think that it is a very intuitive, easy to understand mechanic and it kind of keeps the flow of the game going. So for example, in Patchwork, there's a lot of pieces, when the game starts, all those pieces are out there, but you really only have to look at the three next pieces and how it can fit. Obviously you can look ahead, but generally for reducing that analysis paralysis, you're just like, okay, well just look at those three pieces. What's the best one you can get out of that until you dig deeper into the strategy?
Dave Eng:
Yeah, I think that you're building off on my response, Brian. I'm wondering if you're looking at the same document but my like is that my number two is opponent's choice is slightly influence your options, and the game I reference here is one called Sabika. Did you ever play that game, Brian?
Brian Eng:
No, I have not.
Dave Eng:
So Sabika is one, I played at PAX Unplugged this past year and it's a rondel. Workers moving around and I played it a three player game. So based on where other workers are that could determine where your legal optimal moves are. It plays up to four players, but since it was basically three players, I just knew that when it was coming up to me, I just ranked choice ordered my options, I'm like, okay, this is ideally what I would like to do, but if that's not available, this is the choice I'll take. And if that's not available, this will be the third one.
It was kind of anticipating and playing around with the game states. This is going to be reduced a lot if you're playing heads up because the game state can only change so much in between turns. But I like the fact that at least how I've seen it implemented in this game, that potentially your optimal move will not be available so you have to plan accordingly. But I could see that being totally ruined if there is more than four players involved because the games stake would change too much and you couldn't really do any planning, which I think is okay for some games, but for a game of the weight of Sabika, I think it's useful to limit it to these four players and I think it does it pretty well.
Brian Eng:
Right, okay. Talking about planning head, that kind of leads into my next like. So I believe it adds a type of strategic depth that I like in two ways. One is that being able to plan ahead and also being able to anticipate what your opponent's next moves might be. Again, it kind of applies to anything that follows that classic definition of a rondel. In Great Western Trail, you can almost kind of figure out how you're going to chain your moves to create those chain of actions so that when you land on ... In three turns, you're going to have, okay, I'll have these cattle that I can then trade for this and then be able to trade them in at the end of the run or whatever.
I think Patchwork is one, although considered a simpler game, it does allow ... because you have that shared marker that moves around for your pieces choice, it's very easy to be able to anticipate what your ... well you definitely can anticipate what your opponent's choices are going to be based on the piece you choose. And looking at their board, since it's a two player game, you can kind of keep track of their board a little easier and be like, okay, well if I leave them here, I know they don't have enough buttons for any of these pieces. And that type of almost action denial, which I always like conflict in my games. So being able to anticipate what their options will be and kind of react off of that. Definitely something that rondel allows me to do that I like in games.
Dave Eng:
That leads into my last like, which is you were talking before about Teotihuacan: City of Gods, which I think is for the most part, at least the rondel games that I researched leading up to this episode, is that focusing on the direction totally helps. I couldn't imagine playing Teotihuacan if I had to imagine going clockwise and counterclockwise.
Brian Eng:
Right.
Dave Eng:
There's already a lot going on and I'm like, I just need to focus on the direction and I just need to go that way. So I think, like you said before, looking at what your players' options are. I don't really look at my opponent's board for Patchwork for peace denial, but I think it's important to know for the number of buttons that someone has so they could spend,
Brian Eng:
Yeah, I probably look more about the buttons that they have more than their actual quilt.
Dave Eng:
Yeah, or trying to determine what is the optimal peace placement for them. I think that's just too much for me. I don't want to think about that. I'd rather just think about my board. But what I like about Teotihuacan, even though I'm not a huge fan of the game, is that I only really have to focus on that clockwise motion. I know there are other rondel games that don't have that exclusive clockwise motion, but I'm glad that I don't have to think about too many different game states when I'm examining that game.
Brian Eng:
Right. Yeah, that actually finished off my likes as well. So that was it for your likes?
Dave Eng:
Yeah, I only had three likes. Should we go into dislikes?
Brian Eng:
So we will switch over to dislikes. Okay. So now I would say mine are fairly nitpicky because for the most part I like rondel. So my first one, I enjoy my thematic games and I would say that generally speaking they are kind of arbitrary and it's not really a thematic mechanic for the game. There's nothing really that kind of makes it make sense in the theme. I don't mind it as a mechanic and I enjoy it, but just again, kind of a nitpick that, if you're going for something that's really heavily themed in the way that you choose your actions, I don't really know that I can think of any kind of theme that actually adds to the theme of a game.
Dave Eng:
I'm blanking on it, but I feel like there's a game that is pie themed. It has a rondel and I feel like that would be very thematic, but I don't know.
Brian Eng:
Right, something with pizza in it maybe or something too.
Dave Eng:
Do you remember way back when we played a game called Pie Town? Do you remember that?
Brian Eng:
I do remember that.
Dave Eng:
I think it might've been out of Renegade Studios or something. I think it had a rondel in it, but I'm not sure.
Brian Eng:
Maybe.
Dave Eng:
We only played it once. I remember it was kind of, to be honest, a little bit forgettable when we played it. I think it had a rondel and, if so, I feel like that would be very thematic.
Brian Eng:
Yeah, maybe. I don't remember. I remember playing it. I don't remember the game, so I agree on the forgettable part, at least for me.
Dave Eng:
Oh, I remember you had a secret ingredient for your pie. You kept inside a little cardboard pie slicers or might've been a safe or something, I don't know. But now it makes me want to play the game again because I feel like-
Brian Eng:
Yeah, just to kind of remember it at least.
Dave Eng:
Exactly. All right, should I try my dislike Brian?
Brian Eng:
Yeah, go ahead.
Dave Eng:
Okay, so my first dislike is I titled this rondel is the Opponent of Open Drafting because, like you said, with rondel, for a lot of the selections of games that we're talking about for this episode, you are limited to the individual options you can take based on the game state of the rondel. We talked about Sabika before where different workers really restrict where you can go or what your optimal move is. I say that rondel is the "opponent to open drafting," and I'm going to compare this specifically to Lords of Waterdeep, which we played a lot where, if you're the first player, you got every option available on the map for you. Whereas if you're following up, all your options are going to be reduced.
Brian Eng:
Right.
Dave Eng:
I think that both games have a different design philosophy involved with them, but I think that in terms of accessibility and approachability, I would not bring Lords of Waterdeep to the table, but I would bring a more accessible rondel game because I feel like those decisions are already kind of structured to help people make them and not be paralyzed by the analysis of it.
Brian Eng:
Okay, so my next dislike is, again, kind of dependent on how the rondel is implemented and actually I realized we didn't really talk about this kind of variant to a rondel, but it is pretty common I believe. So generally in a rondel game, so you're moving X number of spaces around the rondel, let's say one to three. But oftentimes there is a method where you can break that rule, whether it's you can pay extra to move one extra space beyond the limit or whatever that is. I believe that adding that, it is possible to lead to a kind of runaway leader problem where being able to pay that extra gives you more options, which then allows you to earn more resources in order to be able to pay to move and be able to play more optimally than if you are behind and are unable to pay that extra. Again, this is more a theoretical dislike than anything that I can actually think of a game where I've noticed it significantly.
Dave Eng:
It's more of like you'd be angry if a game had this.
Brian Eng:
If it had that, yeah, I could see it thematically or theoretically being a problem, but I don't have an example of a game that does that.
Dave Eng:
I see. My second dislike, it plays on that a little bit because I again refer back to Teotihuacan: City of Gods and that there's an inherent cost to go into that next space.
Brian Eng:
Yes.
Dave Eng:
You could look at my board and be like, well is it cocoa in Teotihuacan? In order to take a space that already is occupied by a lot of high level workers? Do you remember?
Brian Eng:
If I think the more other colors that are on a space, the more you have to pay to take that action.
Dave Eng:
And by more other colors, you mean other workers?
Brian Eng:
Other players.
Dave Eng:
Oh, okay. Yeah. So there's an inherent cost in going there and that factors into your decision framework. I could go there at greater cost or I could go to a different space that has no workers and it's free or low cost. I think that a lot of that decision is going to be based on how the designers set it up. Is there a resource necessary to go to the next space or is there a way to mitigate someone that has a lot of resources in which they can choose? Again, I can't think of a specific example, but-
Brian Eng:
Right. Speaking to your example of Teotihuacan, if you move to a space and there's two other players there, you become the third color. So I don't remember exactly how they're, but generally speaking you have to pay three cocoa to action, but the counter to that is that the other action you can take on a space is, instead of taking the spaces action, you can collect cocoa and you get based on the number of different players there. So you get more cocoa. So if there's a space with a lot of different players, you can use it to get more cocoa.
Dave Eng:
Oh, I see. That's a good example of being able to balance it out.
Brian Eng:
Of a design decision to balance that problem. Yeah.
Dave Eng:
Yeah, because cocoa is going to be the main currency or resource.
Brian Eng:
Yeah, right. So my last dislike again is kind of theoretical. I don't have an example I can think of. I think had the same issue with the Mancala mechanic in that, if there isn't a lot of variability in the rondel or if the game time is too long, I think that it could feel very samey or repetitive. But most of our examples either are shorter games where that isn't a problem or they have a way of changing the rondel throughout the game so that it doesn't have that problem.
Dave Eng:
Yeah, I think that for me, my third dislike it is not so much about the differences in the game setup, but more about how the game state can change too much in between turns. I talked a little bit about that with Sabika and other things. I think that my favorite game, Space Park, kind of mitigates this a little bit by using that modular board and by including these fast travel passes which allow you to change the locations of those spaceships in case the board is not set up very well for you to take an optimal move. The way that I played it, people save those up so that later in the game they could make a game winning move by using those fast travel classes.
Brian Eng:
Right, right, right. Yeah, that game sounds interesting. I'll have to look that one up. I have to figure out where I can try that one out.
Dave Eng:
Well, next time we get together we probably play it. I have my copy.
Brian Eng:
Oh yeah, that's right. You're my secondary library.
Dave Eng:
Exactly. All right.
Brian Eng:
Well that was it for dislikes for me. That was your last one?
Dave Eng:
That's my last one.
Brian Eng:
Okay. So from here we go on to kind of twists and variations. We have mentioned a few as we kind of talked about different games, but we can go through those. I forget if we do another roll for this one or-
Dave Eng:
Yeah, let's do another roll.
Brian Eng:
Okay sure.
Dave Eng:
So we got a two D20s. I'm ready to roll when you are, bro.
Brian Eng:
I'm ready. Go ahead. I got a four.
Dave Eng:
I got a two, so you get to go.
Brian Eng:
All right. Okay. So the first one I will talk about is one we just talked about. So being able to pay to move extra spaces. So I have two different versions of that variation that I have examples of. So one where you kind of can pay a resource to move an extra space. A game that we played in preparation for this episode on board game arena, Tiny Farms, and they gave each player, I think it was three cubes that you can spend at any point during the game to move an additional space around things. So one where there's an actual currency for it, and I briefly mentioned Tiny Epic Pirates. So you have not played that one yet?
Dave Eng:
I have not played Tiny Epic Pirates.
Brian Eng:
So the way the rondel works in that one is actually pretty interesting. Each player has their own rondel that is kind of randomized pieces. And you start with three crew members, and each one is on a bonus space. So one gives you extra movement, one gives you extra attack power, and I can't remember what the third one is, and then your captain is the thing that you move your spaces around the rondel. But you can take one of your crew members from their bonus space and move it to a space on the rondel in order to skip that space.
Dave Eng:
Oh, okay.
Brian Eng:
At the cost of reducing some your movement or your attack power. So I thought that was an interesting way. And you have to wait until your captain makes it around the rondel back to the space where the crew member is in order to get that crew member back.
Dave Eng:
Oh, okay.
Brian Eng:
So I thought that was actually a really interesting way of a currency going back and forth on your own board of being able to kind of skip spaces on the rondel.
Dave Eng:
I think that makes it an interesting decision framework too, right? Because by taking that crew member off, they're not doing something on your ship that you could potentially have them be doing.
Brian Eng:
Right. Yeah, yeah. I actually like Tiny Epic Pirates.
Dave Eng:
Does it eclipse Tiny Epic Galaxies view still my favorite.
Brian Eng:
No, no. I like Scott Elm's games, but I don't know if any of them really will beat out Tiny Epic Galaxies.
Dave Eng:
Yeah, that's true. All right, so from my twists and variations number one for me, I got three of them, is I'd like to see more of the differences in resolve and then move or move and then resolve, for basically all of the other rondel games that I think we've mentioned so far, save for Teotihuacan, the other game that I played in my collection a lot in preparation for this is a game called Transmissions. And in Transmissions, again, it's a lot like Space Park, which there are robots that are moving around a board. No one owns those robots, but the way the game plays is you play a card in order to move that robot and then you resolve the space at which it lands on.
I feel that's a little bit like a wonky decision framework because I think what makes Space Park move so fast is you just look at the board, those are your options. You take that option and then you move the spaceship afterwards. The bad part about that is when I played it, some of my friends in my game group would forget to move the spaceships in between turns, whereas with I think Transmissions, since you have to move it, then you resolve it. That's the new game state for the next player.
Brian Eng:
Right.
Dave Eng:
So I would like to see more variety and resolved then move or move and then resolved.
Brian Eng:
Right. Okay. So another kind of variation that we've kind of talked about too is that the rondel spaces can be static. They can be random. So I'm kind of blanking on a static one right now. So random, the game I just mentioned, Tiny Epic Pirates. At the beginning of the game, the places on your rondel are tokens, so you randomly shuffle those and everybody has their own randomized rondel. Or they can change through the game. So my big game, Great Western Trail, the rondel is the board essentially, and as you put more places onto the board, the rondel itself changes in that way. Tiny Farms that we played kind of has a dual layer board, so there's kind of holes on the top and different animals on the bottom and, what is it after each round, I think that board shuffles.
Dave Eng:
Yeah, we only played on BGA, so I don't know what it looks like in person.
Brian Eng:
I think it's after each round that board rotates so that the combination of which animals are in each rondel space changes. So there's definitely many different variations of what the rondel ... it is really a rondel symbology only at that point because isn't rondel just mean a circle?
Dave Eng:
Brian Eng:
Oh, really?
Dave Eng:
Brian Eng:
I feel like they're going more for using it where it came from, circle around.
Dave Eng:
Maybe. Yeah. I don't know. I also could be making this up. I don't know. I did this research over a month ago, so who knows at this point.
Is that your second variation, Brian?
Brian Eng:
That was my second variation. Yeah, go for it.
Dave Eng:
I think this is unique because I never really thought about Great Western Trail as a rondel game. I went through the list on BGG of rondel games and at least I didn't see BGG on it. I was thinking about it for my twists and variations number two is can we combine rondel in grid directions? And when I think about it with Great Western Trail, you can have intersections in Great Western Trail, right?
Brian Eng:
Yes.
Dave Eng:
Based on where you place new tiles.
Brian Eng:
Right.
Dave Eng:
But the rondel can change and it does change over the course of the game. It becomes longer, if anything else. I think because by virtue of it becoming longer, there is more opportunities for you to trade in cattle or do other actions. There's just a lot of things going on in Great Western Trail and I think that that ability to change one the rondel and also provide people different directions is just a great new iterative way to use this specific mechanic.
Brian Eng:
It definitely gets longer. You can have the splits in the paths. You do still have to go in one direction, but it definitely changes throughout the game. I'm not sure if that would work. If you could go in any direction that would be ... I guess it could work. I just don't know if I would consider that a rondel anymore.
Dave Eng:
Yeah, yeah. I don't know.
Brian Eng:
But my one example of Coloma, it kind of comes down to semantics at that point because that one is you're actually just picking the space, but I guess you could say that you're moving up to five spaces around and you're just all moving simultaneously. So my third final variation I have here, actually, I guess I can think of a couple more, but is that you can have games like Teotihuacan where you have multiple pieces on the rondel or Great Western Trail where you have a single piece on the rondel, your one player. And just related to that, even Patchwork where you share the piece that is going around the rondel. I guess going back to that too is you can have kind of the shared rondel or a personal rondel.
Dave Eng:
Oh yeah. We talked about that with Mancala, share the piece in Mancala.
Brian Eng:
Yeah. So that's my third variation I have listed here.
Dave Eng:
All right, My third variation is again referencing back to Mancala. I'd like to see a mashup with some different mechanics. I think that the most common one that I've seen in the examples that I research leading up to this episode is set collection, but I think we see set collection in a lot of modern tabletop games. So I can't really fault designers for wanting to pair the rondel with set collection because it's already a very well-used mechanic, but I think some other cool things to pair it up with would be worker placement. We see that in a lot of modern tabletop games. I also said route and network building, not really thinking about Great Western Trail, which I think also involves route and network building. But I think another cool thing that I would like to see between a rondel mashed up with another mechanic is a dexterity game. I can't really think of one right now, but I think that connecting those two might be interesting. I don't know what it would look like, but I think it would be cool.
Brian Eng:
It's not a rondel game, but for some reason my head just went to Twister.
Dave Eng:
Twister. It has a spinner, right?
Brian Eng:
Yeah, it's a spinner. It's not a rondel.
Dave Eng:
A spinner is basically like the RNG for that game.
Brian Eng:
Yeah, but that's just where my head went when you connected those.
Dave Eng:
Brian Eng:
No.
Dave Eng:
It's like the circus one. For those of you who are listening, Carcassonne is one of those modern classic games. I would put it up there with Azul and Ticket to Ride, Splendor, just hot tabletop games, but are modern and you can still find them in mass market stores like Target. I don't know who thought that including flicking Meeples for Carcassonne, which is already an area control game, would make it different or better. But I just don't think it's rated very highly on BGG and I think that's the one that people make fun of.
Brian Eng:
I think I've got to look into it because I'm thinking of how annoying ... that game is essentially just a bunch of square tiles laid out and now you're flicking things in it. Yeah, I got to look this one up. So that sounds horrible.
Dave Eng:
Not good. Not good. All right, well that's it.
Brian Eng:
I don't really have any more variations.
Dave Eng:
Yeah, I don't have anything else. I'm good.
Brian Eng:
The only other thing I looked a little bit into, I didn't spend too much time looking into the evolution or history of the rondel mechanic, although I will say it does seem like it's a rather new mechanic. The earliest kind of significant game I saw that used it was, I don't know how to pronounce, Antike.
Dave Eng:
Antigua?
Brian Eng:
Dave Eng:
Brian Eng:
I don't know, 2005. It's like historical empire building game. It's got a decent rating on BGG 7.1, but that's the only one that had a significant number of ratings. But yeah, 2005, which really isn't that old for an entire mechanic.
Dave Eng:
I see it here.
Brian Eng:
A pretty big mechanic there.
Dave Eng:
Yeah, I haven't played this game, but I do see the rondel there.
Brian Eng:
It's 1000 in the overall, which is pretty high rating.
Dave Eng:
Well, I like the mechanic for all the reasons we stated before because it's very easy to see the board state and I think it's really accessible and provides some interesting decision structures or making those choices in the game.
Brian Eng:
Yeah. All right,
Dave Eng:
Shall we close it out?
Brian Eng:
All right. Yeah. So I hope you had a wheelie good time listening to our episode. Thanks for listening. We hope you come back for another. That wraps up our rondel episode of AP Table Talk. If you'd like to hear more content like this, please be sure to subscribe. You can also check out more of our content projects and other information about us on www.universityxp.com.
Dave Eng:
Thanks for joining us. We'd also love it if you took some time to rate the show. We live to live others with learning. So if you found this episode useful, consider sharing it with someone who could also benefit. Until next time. Game on!
References:
Action / dexterity. BoardGameGeek. (2023). https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgamecategory/1032/action-dexterity
Almes, S. (2015). Tiny Epic Galaxies [Board game]. BoardGameGeek. https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/163967/tiny-epic-galaxies
Almes, S. (2021). Tiny Epic Pirates [Board game]. BoardGameGeek. https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/309430/tiny-epic-pirates
André, M. (2014). Splendor [Board game]. BoardGameGeek. https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/148228/splendor
Audubon, H (2018). Space Park [Board game]. BoardGameGeek. https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/243358/space-park
Audubon, H (2019). PARKS [Board game]. BoardGameGeek. https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/266524/parks
Audubon, H (2020). Kingswood [Board game]. BoardGameGeek. https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/253368/kingswood
Audubon, H (2021). Trails [Board game]. BoardGameGeek.
https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/338628/trails
Bauza, A. (2012). Tokaido [Board game]. BoardGameGeek. https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/123540/tokaido
Berghiche, S. (2018). The Genius Square [Board game].BoardGameGeek. https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/273065/genius-square
Eng, D. & Eng, B. (Hosts). (2023, June 4). AP Table Talk Grid Coverage. (No. 87) [Audio podcast episode]. Experience Points. University XP. https://www.universityxp.com/podcast/87
Eng, D. (2019, August 06). Meaningful Choices. Retrieved August 24, 2023, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2019/8/6/meaningful-choices
Eng, D. (2019, December 10). Decision Space. Retrieved August 24, 2023, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2019/12/10/decision-space
Eng, D. (2022, October 25). What is Analysis Paralysis?. Retrieved August 24, 2023, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2022/10/25/what-is-analysis-paralysis
Foley, C, Guyer, R, Rabens, N. (1966). Twister [Board game]. BoardGameGeek. https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/5894/twister
Fremgen, D. (2017). Pie Town [Board game]. BoardGameGeek. https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/233976/pie-town
Gerdts, M. (2005). Antike [Board game]. BoardGameGeek. https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/19600/antike
Kiesling, M. (2017). Azul. [Board game]. BoardGameGeek. https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/230802/azul
Lee, P, Thompson, R. (2012). Lords of Waterdeep [Board game]. BoardGameGeek. https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/110327/lords-waterdeep
Mancala. BoardGameGeek. (2023). https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgamemechanic/2955/mancala
Millán, G. (2022). Sabika [Board game]. BoardGameGeek. https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/360265/sabika
Modular Board. BoardGameGeek. (2023). https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgamemechanic/2011/modular-board
Moon, A. R. (2015). Ticket to ride [Board game]. Days of Wonder. https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/9209/ticket-ride
Network and Route Building. BoardGameGeek. (2023). https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgamemechanic/2081/network-and-route-building
Open drafting. BoardGameGeek. (2023). https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgamemechanic/2041/open-drafting
Pac, J, Ostrand, C, Villareal, D. (2021). Merchants Cove [Board game]. BoardGameGeek. https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/277700/merchants-cove
Pac, J. (2019). A Fistful of Meeples [Board game]. BoardGameGeek. https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/277699/fistful-meeples
Pac, J. (2019). Coloma [Board game]. BoardGameGeek. https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/264982/coloma
Pac, J. (2021). Lions of Lydia [Board game]. BoardGameGeek. https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/289550/lions-lydia
Pfister, A. (2016). Great Western Trail (Second Edition) [Board game]. BoardGameGeek. https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/341169/great-western-trail-second-edition
Pfister, A. (2016). Great Western Trail [Board game]. BoardGameGeek. https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/193738/great-western-trail
Pinchback, B, Riddle, M. (2020). Tiny Farms [Board game]. BoardGameGeek.
https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/305841/tiny-farms
Pioch, M. (2022, July 29). The runaway leader “problem.” Inside Up Games. https://insideupgames.com/board-game-reviews/the-runaway-leader-problem/
Rondel. BoardGameGeek. (2023). https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgamemechanic/2813/rondel
Rosenberg, U. (1997). Bohnanza [Board game]. BoardGameGeek. https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/11/bohnanza
Rosenberg, U. (2014). Patchwork [Board game]. BoardGameGeek. https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/163412/patchwork
Rosenberg, U. (2016). A Feast for Odin [Board game]. Boardgame Geek. https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/177736/feast-odin
Set collection. BoardGameGeek. (2023). https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgamemechanic/2004/set-collection
Simultaneous action selection. BoardGameGeek. (2023). https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgamemechanic/2020/simultaneous-action-selection
Tascini, D. (2018). Teotihuacan: City of Gods [Board game]. BoardGameGeek. https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/229853/teotihuacan-city-gods
Teotihuacan: City of gods deluxe master set . kickstarter. (2023, August 3). https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/boardanddice/teotihuacan-city-of-gods-deluxe-master-set
Uwe Rosenberg. BoardGameGeek. (2023). https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgamedesigner/10/uwe-rosenberg
West, A. (2022). Transmissions [Board game]. BoardGameGeek. https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/313065/transmissions
Worker placement. BoardGameGeek. (2023). https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgamemechanic/2082/worker-placement
Wrede, K. (2000). Carcassonne [Board game]. BoardGameGeek. https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/822/carcassonne
Wrede, K. (2008). Carcassonne: Expansion 7 – The Catapult [Board game]. BoardGameGeek. https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/38855/carcassonne-expansion-7-catapult
Yianni, J. (2000) Hive [Board game]. BoardGameGeek. https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/2655/hive
Cite this Episode (Audio):
Eng, D. & Eng, B. (Hosts). (2024, March 10). AP Table Talk Rondel. (No. 107) [Audio podcast episode]. Experience Points. University XP. https://www.universityxp.com/podcast/107
Eng, D. & Eng, B. (Hosts). (2024, March 17). AP Table Talk Rondel. (No. 107) [Video]. Experience Points. University XP. https://www.universityxp.com/video/107
Internal Ref: UXP632UDDHUP