Baudrillard and Board Games

I've been reading on and off this book about the French philosopher Jean Baudrillard. Before you rush off to read it as well, I have to warn you that it generally has not impressed me, and I generally agree with Alan Sokal's assessment of postmodern philosophy as being obscurantist bullshit. Nevertheless, there was one section that made me think a little.

Baudrillard did some thinking about consumerism and the value of objects. I'll give a quick summary of the philosophy which will be totally wrong because the first rule of philosophy is that you're not allowed to say anything simply enough for anyone to understand it because then they might refute it. Nevertheless...

• Objects have 4 types of value - functional, i.e. how useful it is; exchange, i.e. how much you can get for it; symbolic, i.e. how much it means to you; sign, i.e. what it says about you.

This bit I agree with - that's why I have a bed (functional), money (exchange), my grandfather's brush (symbolic), a Bencon t-shirt (sign).

• Originally, items were produced for their functional value.
• In a consumer society, items are produced for their sign value.

A striking example of this last point occurred many years ago with somebody that I used to know. That person had friends visiting who looked at our CD collection and said "you haven't got any good music!" Which is of course a matter of opinion, as I had quite a lot of Nick Cave at the time. Anyway, somebody that I used to know was having a birthday so asked me to get her some good music. Upon interrogation, it turned out that it didn't matter what music it was, so long as her friends would recognise it as good music. (It turned out the answer was Nickelback.) This was a classic blatant example of something being valuable for its sign value above its functional value, which horrified me at the time, being quite naive in the analysis of consumerism.

Baudrillard, as is his wont, continues to take things to extremes.

• In a consumer society, items are acquired for their sign value and their functional value is an alibi for their acquisition.

That is to say, you don't buy a can of Coke because you're thirsty, you buy a can of Coke because you want to be seen buying a can of Coke and you drink it because that's what it's supposed to be used for. It would be equivalent to buy a can of Coke, throw it away and drink a free glass of water. Exactly which scenarios are silly here?

Anyway, I'm not here to say whether this is a good thing or a bad thing, as I'm as vulnerable to this sort of self-delusion as anyone. I'm not writing this blog post because I need to write this blog post, I'm writing it because I want to be seen to be the sort of person who writes this sort of blog post! It's all so you'll like me! However it does make me sympathetic to all the people who say "money doesn't buy happiness", "reduce reuse recycle", etc, etc, etc, even if I don't take practical action on those things. Money doesn't buy me happiness, but it does buy me things that show other people what sort of person I think I am, and that gets me some friends and THAT makes me happy.

OK, onto board games. The most obvious sign of consumerism in board gaming is the Cult of the New - the obsession with getting the newest games being published. I don't know if I've ever really been part of that, as I think I've always been part of the Cult of the Old as well and surely the two can't be mutually compatible? Certainly I do pay attention to what's coming out at Essen, and I have every intention of getting Bora Bora if AdamP doesn't beat me to it, but that sort of activity is just maintenance of my professional library...

... because the way I want to present myself with respect to board games is as an expert player. This means I need to continue playing the latest stuff and I need to express opinions on it, but I also need to understand the old stuff and have experience with that as well. I try to understand and appreciate games from their cultural and historical perspectives as well, rather than just being known for owning a lot of new games. If I can get myself organised after I've finished writing this I'd like to write a review of Taj Mahal, a 13 year old game, because it's a great game that I value.

Another manifestation of the sign value of board games is the photos of games in progress that are posted on Facebook. About once a week I'll take a photo of what I'm playing, particularly if it's pretty, and post it. Within a few minutes I'll have Likes from friends in Sydney and Seattle suggesting that they too are the sort of people who like board games. Well known Idahoan iconoclast DWTripp pooh-poohs people posting photos of some meal they're eating, and posts photos of his old motorbikes and wives - but whether it's food, games or bikes or cats, it's always just a shout-out to your buddies saying "Hey, we both like these sorts of things! We should like each other more because we both like the same things!"

Is this crass attention-seeking? A former colleague of mine resisted joining Facebook for years because he said "it's all just 'look at me, look at me!'". At the time he was dying of cancer and I explained to him, "yes, it is, and we want you to join because we really are interested in you". It seems sometimes people really do want to give you attention. I know if I can ever make it over to BGG.con I'll have a damned fine time meeting about a hundred of my Facebook friends whom I know are of my tribe, because we've already given each other the right signs.

Now, as I alluded to above, trying to escape from the system of signs is just another sign. Once players get over The Cult of the New, they become a Jaded Gamer. Then they become a Gamer Who's Trying To Cut Down Their Collection. Off the top of my head, I can name batcut, CyberKev, da pyrate, shawn_low, thepackrat and Vexatious as Australian geeks who are seriously in that phase, and the Aluminium Gamers all have it in mind. Is cutting down your collection, i.e. rejecting consumerism, really a need, or is it still just a sign? What's the purpose of trading away a game rather than just throwing it away? Do you trade just to be part of that tribe?

I've discussed this matter with CyberKev several times, as we're always open to philosophical discussions on the nature of the hobby. The sad conclusion is that life is a time when you do some stuff and then you die and what you did really doesn't matter very much anyway. At that time your stuff will become someone else's problem. Until then though, it remains as a halo of wood and plastic bits occupying space and bytes, carving out your particular place in the world.

Intensity

There are a few games that I find very intense, i.e. when I'm playing them I get extremely involved and find myself on edge. Examples include Pick Two, Taj Mahal, St Petersburg and Domaine. These are great games, no doubt, but I don't find the same thing with other (allegedly) great games such as El Grande or Cosmic Encounter. I don't know what the difference is, I guess it's something in the mechanics intrigues me and sucks me in.

Anyway, the problem is that I find some of those games, in particular Taj Mahal, to be so intense that it's exhausting. In a given evening, I can only play one game of Taj, and sometimes I look at it on the shelf and think "No, I can't face it this evening." Having to teach the game first, which is almost always the case, makes it even more work. As a consequence, I will often put something easy to teach like Metro or Qwirkle in the game box instead of Taj.

So what should my rating for Taj be? A game that is totally awesome but I can't always play? I'll always play Metro, so should I rate it higher than Taj even though it's clearly a lesser game? I've bumped my rating for Taj up to a 9 nevertheless, as I feel I should rate the game on how I feel about it in the right situation, i.e. when my blood sugar levels are right and I've had plenty of sleep.

By the way, playing Pick Two with me is intense for everybody. In case you haven't played, there's a large pool of letter tiles. Each player starts with 8, and needs to arrange their tiles into a valid crossword formation. When someone achieves that they say "pick two" and everybody takes 2 more tiles, and they rearrange their crossword to add them. When someone has achieved that, then they say "pick two". And you keep going until the tiles run out, and score (negatively) for the tiles you didn't fit into your crossword. Speed word games are my forte, and I like to keep the pressure on, so my opponents find it hard work. Some people admit there's no point playing against me... but I don't care because I am in the zone when I play and that's a great feeling.

Taj for Two, and Two for Taj

Scrabblette and I had a quiet night at home last night which included our first playing of Taj Mahal which arrived only on Wednesday. Yes, I know it needs 3 players but we used Shane Laporte's two player variant and that seemed to work OK. Scrabblette got the purple guy special card with the elephant on and dominated the elephants in the middle of the game (she got 8 elephant tiles, I got 4). I focused on building palaces, collecting bonus tiles, and keeping a card advantage. My strategy didn't work very well, particularly as I ran out of palaces (something which can't happen in 3+ player) and was unable to build any in region 12. By the time I noticed how many points Scrabblette was getting from elephants it took a couple of turns to get the elephant man away from her, and then she took him back again.

Scrabblette won, 69 points to 60. My feeling is that the 2-player variant successfully preserves the essence of the game, though the grand moghuls are next to useless. We should play with the kid and gang up on him...

I Can't Wait for Scrabblette to Come Home

Because frankly, as good as CyberKev is at Rheinlander, I don't want to play Footsies with him.

Scrabblette is STILL overseas visiting family. How many families does she have? Doesn't she know I need someone to organise my life so that the game-playing and the housework happen in sensible proportions? Actually, yes, she does know all those things and we're constantly in touch and she'll be home soon. I'm looking forward to it and I've been thinking of games I'd like to play with her when she gets back.

I know what you're thinking, but no, this is not one of those horrible double entendre articles that make you alternately snigger and grimace. I'll do one of those later if I can figure out how to write it without offending my audience. This is a serious list. Scrabblette has decided that her favourite types of games are word games and abstracts. They're two of my favourites as well, but I also like deduction games, dexterity games and whatever that type is that includes Tikal, Domaine, Rheinlander, Bridges of Shangri-La, Tigris & Euphrates and Trias. But still, I have a lot of word and abstract games to play with her.


Through the Desert - Besides being a beautiful game, this is quite a lot like Go but without the intensity.






Taj Mahal - I haven't played this yet, but of the two Indian themed games in the BGG Top 50 this seems to be the lighter. Also, the little taj mahals look really nice. Maybe not Scrabblette's type of game, but I think she'll like the theme.




Hey, That's My Fish - This is the highest ranked abstract game that I don't own, which is good incentive to buy it. As well as playing it with Scrabblette, the kids might like it.





Scrabble - I have to confess that we haven't actually gotten around to playing this yet. We've played Scrabble Cards and several other word games, but not this one.





ZERTZ - We played GIPF once and she seemed to enjoy it, and ZERTZ is probably just as good. Furthermore it doesn't have a board, in fact everything is made of Bakelite, so we could play this at the beach or in a park or in any number of romantic places. Besides, I'm really itching to play it again.



Tigris and Euphrates - Gentlemen, now you see just how attractive this woman is :-). Yes, there are some women out there who will play E&T, and I'm yet to see whether Scrabblette is one of them, but I have a kinky fantasy where she enjoys playing this. You have to admit that's pretty kinky. If she doesn't like it I'll try to play it with my brother-in-law, although he's a bit hairy.


Now, I know what you're all thinking. What about Lost Cities? I have had good experiences with Lost Cities in the past, but I think Scrabblette is more capable than that. We'll see when she gets back, in 222 hours.