For this week's assignment, we were given links to various card and board games with online versions, such as hearts, backgammon, and Agricola. While exploring Agricola, I was struck by some of its similarities to another game my family and friends often play together, The Settlers of Catan.
Anyone out there who loves board games should really explore some of the really wonderful games developed by a few well-known and loved German-style board game designers, such as Klaus Teuber (Settlers of Catan), Leo Colovini (Carcassonne), and Alan R. Moon (Ticket to Ride). If you're more of a card game player, Dominion is a card game in the German style as well. I highly recommend them all, and can promise lots of challenging, good-clean fun; but I can't promise that they aren't habit-forming. You won't look at board games the same way after experiencing these or other German-style board games.
Because the assignment was to focus on only one game, I have chosen to focus on The Settlers of Catan. Catan is a well-known and much-loved game that is simple enough to explain game-play on this blog, but complex enough that digital and non-digital formats affect perception of game-play.
General information: explanation of game-play
The Settlers of Catan original game is a 3-4 player game. Extension packs are available to make the game 5-6 player or to add new scenarios and options to game-play. We will focus on the basic game for today's post.
To begin, each player must select an area to "settle" on the board at intersections of the board pieces (hexagonal shapes called "hexes"). Once every player has selected two locations on the board and placed their first two settlements and beginning road sections, play may begin.
 |
| Online tutorial game guides player to place first settlement. |
Hexes where players settle "produce" one of five resources: wood, brick, sheep, wheat, and ore. When the die are rolled, the hex with the number corresponding to the die roll "produce" for that round for any and all players settled on that hex. A player will need to use the resources they receive at die roles carefully to win the game. Trading among players and with "the bank" for resources you do not have is encouraged. It is difficult to win the game without access to a variety of resources or no trading options. However, you cannot collect too many cards. Whenever a 7 is rolled with the die, the Robber is activated, any player with more than 7 cards in their hand looses half, and the Robber must be moved by the current player to another hex on the board. If another player is settled adjacent to that hex, the current player may steal a resource card from the other player. Whatever hex a Robber is on cannot produce goods until he is removed, which may take several rounds until another 7 is rolled or a player plays a Knight card (discussed below).
 |
| Tutorial game explaining stealing resources. |
There are many different strategies a player can take to win the game using their available resources. Resources can be used for several actions during a player's turn: building (which includes roads, settlements, cities) and buying a development card. Development cards often contain points or other helpful actions for the player. The most common development card is the Knight. The Knight can move the Robber off of any hex and onto a new one; the player moving the Robber is then allowed to steal a resource from another player settled adjacent the new hex.
Points are also awarded for longest road, largest army (of played Knight cards), settlements (+1), and cities (+2). Game play is concluded when a player achieves 10 Victory Points.
Comparison of formats: digital vs non-digital
Comparison 1: Game components
Set-up:
The online version had the obvious advantage of set-up. It usually takes me 5-10 minutes to set up the board version, depending on how many players there are and which extension pack I use. Each piece is separate (hexes, border, and ports) and must be randomized for best game-play. With the online version, game-play could begin much faster as the board is randomized by the computer (in the registered and paid versions, not in the tutor). Also, the board is rather complex in itself; the hex pieces fit well together, but do not "snap" into place or stay put. Slight bumps by players can dislodge hexes, upsetting the number indicators placed upon them or players' settlement and road pieces.
Cards:
The biggest difference I saw in the game components was the look and "feel" of the resource and development cards and their use. In the digital games, the cards have designated areas on the players' display where they belong and are organized. In the non-digital version, each player can organize their cards however they may like. For example, as I am preparing to use cards for an upcoming action, I might group them together in my hand or on the table in front of me. In the digital version, such "designation" and grouping is impossible, so I had to me more conscious of my strategy. While other players' actions can affect one's strategy, I felt I had to work harder to not be distracted by other players' actions since there was no way to "note" or "track" my own.
Trading was also more abstract with the online digital version of the game. This, along with the difficulty of "tracking" where and how I wanted to use my resources, made me miss having the tangible, non-digital resource and development cards. Ip and Cooperstock (2011) stated in the conclusion of their study of digital vs non-digital versions of The Settlers of Catan that "preference of tangible components over digital equivalents for complex interaction tasks such as card trading was demonstrated by the significant differences between the virtual and tangible conditions in many areas of the questionnaire" (p. 454).
Comparison 2: Interaction
Within the online "tutor" version, there were major differences among "player" interaction.
During each player's turn, they are able to trade with other players. Trading is component of the game where interaction is built into the game. With the online version with digital cards and resources, you have to ask for a specific resource when offering a trade with other players. Frequently in the non-digital format, trades are called out as, "What would someone give me for sheep?", making known what resource was available, but not requesting a specific one in return. Also, the digital trade could not be directed at a specific player, but at all. Each player would then respond with their choice to accept or reject. The player who initiated the trade could then accept or decline any accepted offer. This allows the player to decline a trade with someone who might be closer to achieving 10 Victory Points than they are.
 |
| My offer to trade was declined by both computer players (indicated by the thumbs down), so I will trade four resources (ore) to the bank for the one I need (wheat). |
While there can be a lot of wheeling-and-dealing occurring during the non-digital version, it was impossible to negotiate in the demo version online. I would love to see how this plays in the multi-player internet version, but I haven't had the opportunity to do so yet, since multi-player game-play is paid only. Based on the format the online version has for trading, there might be a possibility for negotiation to occur: after I initiated a trade offer, the computer players would have a comment bubble appear next to them. However, trade online might not be as fast-paced or as engaging and rewarding as it is during non-digital game-play if more than one human player is involved.
Game Definition:
When comparing the digital and non-digital versions of The Settlers of Catan within my definition of a game, both versions are very strong in nearly all elements (organized rules, exists outside ordinary life, fun, conflict, challenging goal, uncertainty of outcome). The biggest difference between the two was in interaction with others. Though trading is available with the computer players in the online version, interaction is not nearly as stimulating and variable as with human players. With other humans sitting around the same table, you can build alliances, team-up against the player with the most Victory Points, and other such complex interactions that the anonymity of the computerized version does not nurture. It is my opinion that these rich, very human interactions, though not mentioned in the rules (either encouraged or forbidden) naturally occur from all of the other strong game components that make a good game. Something about being in the same room as the other players encourages these interactions and cannot be truly replicated in a strictly digital version.
In a study conducted by Ip and Cooperstock (2011), players who experienced both digital, "classic" (non-digital), and TAR (Tangible Automatic Reality - part physical, part digital components) of this game rated the purely digital version as their least favorite version overall, with the lowest scores in "perceived usability" and "negative effect" on ratings of personal game experience and "empathy" as the lowest score of ratings for social experience. It is this component of empathy with other players during game play that enriches the trading phases of the game and makes them the driving factor of both game-play and the interactions central to the enjoyment of game-play. Close human-to-human interactions during trading make the game extremely engaging and add a huge variable component that makes each game-play very different and exciting.
iPad App:
My husband and I also experimented with the iPad app of this game recently. While it was also strong on the gaming components, we found trading to again be the most complicated component with this other digital form. It is important in game-play that your opponents do NOT see your resource and development cards, especially if you are trying to make a trade that will be very favorable to you. With the iPad version, you have to pass the iPad back and forth between players so each player can see their cards, but not the others'. This can be very complicating when trying to negotiate trades with others. Frequently, players need to be able to see your cards and the board while considering the consequences of a trade offer being made, and this is sacrificed in the set-up in order to have a way for the resource cards to remain private.
For someone looking for a way to relax by themselves or wants to enjoy a fast game, the online or iPad version works beautifully. For someone who enjoys the interactions and negotiations of game-play, the online version might not be their preferred format.
Thoughts on digital vs non-digital formats for classroom use
As I have discussed in the past two posts, ELLs tend to prefer more concrete elements to work with to support their English language development. Keeping this in mind, it would be best to introduce a new game with tangible, non-digital components first, allowing them to learn how each component and piece "moves" and is important to the flow and to achieving goal of the game. Tangible elements offer more concrete context for ELLs to be able to negotiate how to communicate about their understanding of the game within the game. Having all components within the digital realm takes some of that context away from these students; if they have questions, a tangible, non-digital realm allows them to manipulate the components to SHOW what they want to communicate as they also verbally explain it. In a purely digital format, they must find a way to abstractly explain their ideas, and this can be very difficult and frustrating to ELLs of emerging or beginning language proficiency, hindering their enjoyment of the experience and the learning experiences they could take-away from it.
Ip and Cooperstock (2011) also mentioned in their findings that "retain[ing] tangible components used for making strategic choices while digitizing pieces used for simple, mundane tasks such as the ones required for board setup" were the preferences of their study group, indicating that some combination of tangible, concrete components and digital, automatic ones actually supported better, more engaging and meaningful game-play. While online resources and games can benefit all learners, learning to recognize when an online game is not effectively supporting the more complex aspects of strategic problem-solving and decision-making processes and/or the learning styles of our students will make educators more able to evaluate the use and benefit of these resources in our classrooms.
References:
Ip, J. and Cooperstock, J. (2011). To virtualize or not?
The importance of physical and virtual components in augmented reality board
games. Lecture Notes in Computer Science Volume
6972, 2011, pp 452-455. Retrieved
from: http://www.cim.mcgill.ca/sre/publications/2011-ICEC.pdf
Wow, I had heard about this game a long time ago but never played it because I didn't know its name. Accordingly, I never got to play it. My friends used to rant and rave about it and really enjoyed playing it, so I'll have to go check it out now...finally...after 15 years!
ReplyDeleteIsn't it interesting how games can either be fun and motivational or just a simple point-and-click when just the medium itself changes? This activity has really helped me to realize how the medium of a game should not be taken for granted and has more importance than I previously realized. It's funny because you'd think that computers could replicate these simple games in all their glory, but in reality, there's just no substitute for human interaction, and that's such a core element of these activities.
That's a theory I've always held (which has been very contrary to others' perceptions of online games). I have always thought this personal perception made me different, but it's good to see that I'm not alone in this after all; our group all seems to feel that human interaction really enriches game experiences.
DeleteI actually had never heard of this game, and it learning how to play it seemed daunting. After reading your post I feel encouraged to give it a try!
ReplyDeleteI remember playing games as a child where after we finally set up all the pieces I was completely worn out and uninterested in actually playing the game. So I think you're on to something about the ease of set up and play in a digital format.
It has been so interesting to read your input on games and ELLs. I agree that a digital format could be overwhelming because of the abstract quality. Perhaps it would have to be introduced with the classic format in the classroom and practiced before students could play independently.
I think it depends on the game and the amount of setup involved personally speaking. I do agree that some setups are just TOO tedious and I would lose interest - same goes if there are just TOO many rules to remember and abide by.
DeleteThis game does take some time to set up when learning to play it. When we break it out for people, my husband explains the rules while I set it up - I'm fast (can do it in under 5 min if I don't have to help explain the rules at the same time).
DeleteI'd recommend playing it online with the tutor to learn the rules. It was a good, structured explanation. If you want to play it in real life, play it with a friend who owns the game; it's a bit pricey ($45, I believe) for the basic, original game.
The rules are well-structured and just complex enough to have a lot of variety in experience during game-play. I don't think I've ever won in exactly the same way twice. What's fun about the rules is that they are open enough that players can get creative about how to interact; nothing about HOW to conduct trades (only that you can only trade with the person whose turn it is or how many can be done in a turn) and nothing about alliances or other "understandings" among players. Lots of fun interactions possible.
You said the game setup "must be randomized for best game-play" and I was wondering if it was possible to setup the game in a particular way as a strategy?
ReplyDeleteI don't think anyone mentioned this in posts for this week, but where you said "each player can organize their cards however they may like" in reference to the physical board game, this really does apply to the other board games reviewed this week (Monopoly and Life) - not so sure there's as much strategy involved with card/money organization in these games as this one, but the personalization with this aspect of the game, is indeed lacking in the digital versions. Reminds me why my husband prefers to heat water on the stove for tea rather than use our (wonderfully awesome) Keurig machine to get hot water. He says it's almost as much the preparation of the tea that he enjoys, as much as the tea itself. I think the same goes with playing the board games - even though the physical aspects of setup and play almost always take longer than the digital versions, that's one of the parts we really like about them.
No, there isn't a way to setup the board for any particular strategy use of advantage. Because the hexes are placed randomly (I always lay them out upside-down, then flip them over so they are random), and then the numbers placed will land on different hex resources every time, the board really is random, challenging players to carefully consider what strategy they might want to attempt for the game win. Of course, certain numbers are statistically rolled more often (5-10), and players will need all resources to win the game (necessitating placement of settlements on as much variety of resources as possible). These elements make choice of initial two settlement placements a very thoughtful, strategic choice on a random board setup.
DeleteI know what you mean, though, about the preparation and process being part of the experience. It's fun to watch the board be built with comments popping up among players like, "oh, man, the desert is in a terrible location this round" or "Oh, look at those two ore hexes side-by-side - possible monopoly happening!" And so the interactions begin before anyone even knows who places the first settlement.