Episode 146 AP Table Talk: Take That

AP Table Talk: Take That

Episode Summary

In this episode of AP Table Talk, Brian and Dave dig into the “Take That” game mechanic. From classics like UNO, Sorry!, and Risk to modern favorites like Munchkin, Blood Rage, and King of Tokyo: Duel, they explore how denial, betrayal, and revenge fuel tension, drama, and unforgettable tabletop stories.

Brian Eng:

Hello and welcome to AP Table Talk, a podcast where we explore board games and what makes them interesting to us. As always, I'm your host, Brian, and joining me is someone that treats board games like a competitive sport, if that sport was losing spectacularly every time, my cousin and co-host, Dave.

Dave Eng:

I don't lose-

Brian Eng:

Hey, Dave, how's it going?

Dave Eng:

... every time, but 60% of the time I win every time.

Brian Eng:                                                                                                         

I had to put it in for our, I mean, I realize we wait to reveal the mechanic, but anyone who's listening, it's in the title of the podcast.

Dave Eng:

Yeah, that's true.

Brian Eng:

This is our Take That mechanic episode. I needed to stick it to you in the intro there.

Dave Eng:

Brian, I think you've been looking forward to this episode for a while because I feel like this-

Brian Eng:

I have.

Dave Eng:

... is a mechanic that speaks directly to you.

Brian Eng:

Yes. We were talking before the recording started and I think that my high expectations for this episode have made me crumble under the pressure because I felt it, I had a real difficult time with my notes on this episode. So, we'll see how it goes. So, you're better at talking about board games and I'm better at playing them.

Dave Eng:

Yeah. Well, I'll go with that. I'll go with that.

Brian Eng:

All right. Okay. Yeah, so as we said in this episode, we're going to discuss the Take That mechanic as it applies to board games. So, I know I normally give my definition of it, but I think part of my issues with getting prepared for this episode is kind of the subtleties of the Take That mechanic and how we view it. So, instead of giving my example, because I think we're going to be talking about a lot, why don't we start with the official definition and we can kind of just talk about some of the subtleties of it? We'll probably be talking about it throughout, I think.

Dave Eng:

Yeah. Yeah. I think that makes sense because I think I know what your definition is, Brian. But so we can keep it all above board, we're going to start out with the BGG definition of Take That. So, in BoardGameGeek.com, BGG.com It says, "Competitive maneuvers that directly target one opponent's progress towards victory, but do not directly eliminate any characters or components representing the opponent. Such mechanics include stealing, nullifying or forced discarding of one's opponents' resources, actions, or abilities. A Take That maneuver often results in a dramatic change in the player's position of power over a relatively short period of time." And then it also adds the caveat, "It is unclear whether this includes two player games because every action inhibits your opponent's victory." So, that's the official definition, Brian, from BGG.

Brian Eng:

Right. And we touched on that in our preparation discussions of basically every two-player game is to Take That game because as long as you're progressing towards winning, you're inhibiting the other person from winning, right?

Dave Eng:

Right, right.

Brian Eng:

So, it becomes a little muddy there with the two-player games.

Dave Eng:

Yeah, and I'm glad we addressed that because based on that Take That definition, especially if it's a zero-sum game, Brian, every action you take is going to be against your hopefully positive for you sometimes, hopefully negative for your opponent, but it's really much broader than that and I think we're going to dive into that with this episode.

Brian Eng:

Yeah, actually I should say that addresses it based on the BGG definition and just to outline or to give a little glimpse as to kind of my thoughts on that is that I think of the Take That mechanic or what I enjoy about Take That mechanic is more the spirit of the actions as opposed to the actual action themselves, the motivation, that kind of thing. And again, we'll get into it probably in our examples. So, I do have some just generic examples of Take That games, but I guess we'll probably get into our examples anyways. So, why don't we just move right into our major examples section.

Dave Eng:

All right. So, if you're listening to AP Table Talk for the very first time, we're going to go through some major examples for this mechanic. Normally we lead with a die roll, so both Brian and I have two D20s and we're going to roll them and whoever rolls highest is going to lead. Sounds cool with you, Brian?

Brian Eng:

I'm ready.

Dave Eng:

All right. 3, 2, 1, roll.

Brian Eng:

Oh, I got a two.

Dave Eng:

I got 18.

Brian Eng:

All right. So, you can go ahead.

Dave Eng:

Add it together they reach D20. All right. So, we are going to go with major examples. So, the first one is first example, right Brian? Of a take that game?

Brian Eng:

The first Take That game that you played.

Dave Eng:

Okay.

Brian Eng:

I'll let you know, Dave, that I did add in some, I don't know if we want to call it honorable mentions in mine. I won't talk about them too long. But because this is a category, I think it's a pretty broad category, it's been around for a long, the mechanic itself I think is one of the earlier ones. So, it kind of covers a lot of games.

Dave Eng:

It does. There's a lot.

Brian Eng:

So, I did focus on specific one, but I do have some other examples in each one as well.

Dave Eng:

Right. Yeah, me too. So, I have my first Take That game and I have an honorable mention because I'm not sure if it was also the first, but I'm going to say that my official first is going to be Risk. And you probably know this, playing at family gatherings and everything, we're totally rolling against each other, just taking over continents and everything. So, Take That in Risk gathering and placing armies adjacency is always going to be considered hostile because if you place your army next to mine, then at some point we're probably going to battle each other unless it's just to gain a bonus or something else.

And battling itself is going to be contentious because I am actively making a choice to eliminate your pieces from the board that allows me to gain territorial control. Unless I would say, I don't know if you remember, Brian, growing up, especially for playing Risk three ways, sometimes Chris would be like, I just got to attack you Dave, because you're in the way. I'm trying to get to Brian and you're in that territory, so I got to move through it. But it's still Take That, right? Because you're still eliminating-

Brian Eng:

Yes, absolutely.

Dave Eng:

... my position in that territory.

Brian Eng:

Oh, sorry, go on. Finish your thought there and I'll...

Dave Eng:

Okay. I still think it's a game built on a high degree of player interaction because all of the moves that you can make in Risk are going to be global game state changes. It's mostly increasing your presence in a territory or adding to a territory or taking over new territory. But all of those changes change the entire game state for what the next player could do or other players after that.

Brian Eng:

Right. So, I think at one point I was thinking about Risk, because that's probably pretty early for me as well. But one thing I was thinking about again in how I look at Take That games or what I qualify as Take That games is that a lot of the games where the entire game is combat focused. I don't really consider the combat as Take That even though it falls within the definition because that's just the core mechanics of the game. I know that's a little bit fuzzy and it doesn't really mean anything, but to me it's more Take That if the game is not a combat game and I do something and kill armies of yours as opposed to a game where the whole purpose is for armies to attack.

Dave Eng:

Okay.

Brian Eng:

Don't know if that makes sense.

Dave Eng:

I could see that. Because it's just like it's a war game. Okay, in a war game you're expected to battle...

Brian Eng:

Yeah. That is the expected action is that you're going to be doing those things. It doesn't mean there can't be Take That actions within war games, but Risk. Well, I would definitely consider to Take That game if I had to qualify it, but it's not one that I think of when I'm thinking to scratch that itch of Take That game.

Dave Eng:

Yeah, I would say so.

Brian Eng:

So, I did put some early, I'm trying to stick my answers to less of the classic games, but I did put a couple on there because those probably would've been my first. So, I've got two, which I'm not sure which one I would've played first. I'm thinking UNO with the pickup cards and things like that because they're targeted and then, Sorry!, which is probably even older.

Dave Eng:

Yeah, it is.

Brian Eng:

Because isn't that based on Parcheesi or whatever?

Dave Eng:

Mm-hmm.

Brian Eng:

And that's another one horrible game because that game can last forever. But definitely think it's a Take That game.

Dave Eng:

You're going to run out of patience before you run out of time with Sorry! really.

Brian Eng:

So, my actual choice that I put, which I probably didn't play it before Risk, but I put Munchkin, which in fact a lot of these games probably could have fit into most noteworthy as well when we get to that point. But I put Munchkin because it was pretty early on, and again now, even though I just said with Risk that if the whole purpose of the game is like a war game, so you're battling the whole time, then I kind of ignore it as a Take That game. I mean Munchkin is kind of that the whole game is kind of Screw Your Neighbor, which is kind of Take That, but just the intent of what you're doing is different

Dave Eng:

With Munchkin specifically? Because-

Brian Eng:

Yeah, there's a different type of maliciousness to your actions where it's that wanting to almost frustrate them.

Dave Eng:

Yeah, yeah, I mean like-

Brian Eng:

It's that type of it.

Dave Eng:

To what you were saying about before, Brian, not every action you can take in Munchkin is going to be Take That action because at some point you're going to have to fight a creature and okay, who wants to help me out with this? So, you need some sort of cooperative spirit...

Brian Eng:

Right. And then again, that brings in other Take That where it's the betrayal of like, yes, I help you help you with this monster. So, I do definitely consider that to Take That game. And I can't remember when I first played Munchkin, but it was pretty early.

Dave Eng:

I think it might've been at the beGining of the whole board game renaissance, right?

Brian Eng:

Maybe. Yeah. When was that game? That was early 2000s.

Dave Eng:

Yeah, I think so. I mean, we can look it up right now, but I'm glad you said UNO, Brian, because that was my runner up.

Brian Eng:

Okay, perfect. Yes. Yeah, again, the classics, a lot of them probably have a lot to Take That in them too.

Dave Eng:

I see Munchkin on BGG says 2001.

Brian Eng:

2001.

Dave Eng:

Yeah.

Brian Eng:

Yeah. So, that, that's pretty early on.

Dave Eng:

Wow. Playing time, 60 to 120 minutes. I cannot imagine myself being in a two-hour game of Munchkin, nor do I want to.

Brian Eng:

No, no, no, no.

Dave Eng:

All right.

Brian Eng:

You know what, a lot of people liked that game though. And it was definitely a-

Dave Eng:

Yeah, that's true.

Brian Eng:

I think it was definitely a gateway game for a lot of people.

Dave Eng:

It helped pave the way for a lot of other games.

Brian Eng:

Right, yeah. Okay, so let's move on.

Dave Eng:

That was first, right?

Brian Eng:

Yeah, that was our first Take That game. We'll move on to our favorite.

Dave Eng:

Yeah.

Brian Eng:

All right.

Dave Eng:

Do you lead or do I go?

Brian Eng:

You can go. You won the initiative.

Dave Eng:

The roll.

Brian Eng:

So, you can go.

Dave Eng:

So, favorite and I did this and I said I would do this again. So, my group, Banditos Gaming, I told them we were doing research for this episode and I'm like, we're going to have to play this game. We played a lot actually, but I'm researching Take That. So, my favorite Take That game is a game that I play a lot with two of our members, actually, Owen and Gini, we play a lot of Stick 'Em. Are you familiar with Stick 'Em, Brian, the card game?

Brian Eng:

No, I don't think I've played that.

Dave Eng:

One, I think that if you, me and Chris all got together, you would totally be into it because it is essentially, it's a trick taking game that is all Take That because you dump points on your opponents and you don't want points, you want the lowest points.

Brian Eng:

Right, yes, yes.

Dave Eng:

So, that's the whole onus of the game. You don't want to get stuck with a bunch of points, but you can get into a position where you get to stick people with a lot of negative points. So, I like it because a really small and simple card game. It's a pivot from traditional trick taking because it is, there is no must-follow. You could really play any card, but the card that you play depends on who wins the trick. And a lot of good trick taking games, sometimes you want to win the trick and sometimes you don't. But what's funny about this is whenever I play with Owen and Gini with the Banditos, whenever I'm playing, they're just like, we have to stick Dave very badly every game. They're like, we don't really care if we win, but if we stick Dave with all the points, then it'll be a good game.

So, despite that, I still like the game, which you think is the hallmark of a good game, even though you lose a lot, I'm like, yeah, I'd still play it. But really I would say the only bad part about the game is that even though it's a small box card game, it really expands with the number of people you play with. So, it plays up to six. If you play up to six people, you play one round per person and it just becomes a very ... You could honestly spend two and a half hours playing Stick 'Em with-

Brian Eng:

Oh wow.

Dave Eng:

... six players, which I think kind of overstays its welcome, but it's my favorite and I'm going to stick to it, no pun intended.

Brian Eng:

What's a good minimum count for that game?

Dave Eng:

Minimum at least three. I think four is actually the best count. And I have a runner up, but I want to see if my runner up is your runner up?

Brian Eng:

I'm guessing it isn't. Okay. I'll start with my favorite. It's actually a more recent game, but I've played it only a handful of times, but I've really enjoyed it and definitely there is a lot of Take That in it, which is part of the reason I really enjoy it, and it is Arcs.

Dave Eng:

Oh yeah, yeah.

Brian Eng:

So, it's a trick-taking area control game. They use the trick taking very interesting in this game to choose your actions as well and the actions that everyone gets to take, and that sets up for a lot of my type of Take That. So, I did list out kind of the things in that game that you can do that kind of falls in the Take That I think of. So, there are, one of my favorite things is action denial. If I can do stuff that makes it so that the other players either can't do what they want to do or can't do anything on their turn, that's one of my favorite type of Take That things to do. So, in this, because if you lead, so you're doing your trick taking, if you lead the trick, you get to choose a suit and the suits determine the types of actions that can be taken.

So, the other players can either follow suit and get multiple actions or they can play off suit, but they'll only get then one action. I mean, it's possible to lock people out multiple rounds of being able to do the actions they need to. And I think what I like about it isn't just being able to lock someone out. It's that balance of in order to lock someone out, you have to also be able to anticipate what it is they want to do. So, there is some skill in it. It's not just I flipped a card and it says you lose a turn. To me, that's not the same thing. So, there's that. One of the other big things is that during each round, or not during each round, but during each era I think they're called, you have to use a turn to choose how the round is scored. There are round scoring markers that have to get chosen.

So, again, if you see that a person is playing, leading up, building up towards something, you can then lock them out of being able to score that thing so that basically it's wasted effort. And then there's like most games, there's being able to steal powers. So, there's court cards that you can take. But what I like about those two, so in order to take them, it's like a two-step process. You have to place agents into the court and then you use a separate action to then secure a court card and you have to have the majority agents on that card. It's generally not something you can do in one turn. There is ways to do it. So, because you can see people going for it, you're able to get your agents in there, take the majority, take the card. And not only that, when you do that, you also get to capture the agents that they have on that card and they become prisoners. So, just some examples of the type Take That I really enjoy in that game, which is what makes a lot of the fun factor for me.

Dave Eng:

That game is right up your alley, Brian.

Brian Eng:

Yeah, absolutely.

Dave Eng:

I played it once and I was like, I got a few times to lead. Leading is great, you want to lead in the game, because then you get set the agenda, "the agenda" for that turn or whatever. I forget the name of the structure. But when you're not leading, I was just like, I just feel like I can't do anything of significance. Even if I'm following, my follow action isn't great.

Brian Eng:

I think that that is the largest complaint is that you could get dealt a hand that's really no good. And I haven't played enough to say whether I feel that's justified or not. It's always possible to seize the initiative, but it is very costly.

Dave Eng:

Yeah. It's burn two cards, right?

Brian Eng:

Yeah. So, I think that if you can make that judgment call that you need to do that early and do it right away, I think you can mitigate that. But I could see, I mean, it's definitely possible that you just get dealt that terrible, terrible hand. But all in all it hasn't run ... And again, I haven't played that many times. I have not hit double digits in that game yet, but it hasn't really been a major problem yet for us. But anyway, so that was my favorite. So, my runner up, do you want me to do my runner up first or you do yours?

Dave Eng:

Yeah, yeah, go ahead.

Brian Eng:

Okay. My runner up, and mainly, again, this is kind of similar to Risk is Star Wars X-Wing Miniatures, which I've talked about on the podcast before. Again, it is a combat game. The reason I put that one in as my favorite is mostly because of the way that I play it, because I play it as, my favorite thing to do in that game is action denial. So, part of that game is you set up your dials with the maneuvers you're going to do and everybody kind of reveals simultaneously. And if you can block or outmaneuver, it's possible that you just really screw up the other person's entire plan for that round. And it's the same kind of thing. It's like it's wasted effort for them, but it requires you to be able to anticipate what they're thinking. And I really enjoy that. That's kind of what I like about the Take That is that trying to guess what they're doing and then having a plan that just totally screws them if you're right. So, that was my runner up, or not runner up, but my honorable mention, I should say.

Dave Eng:

We talked about X-Wing during the last episode on Rock Paper Scissors.

Brian Eng:

Right.

Dave Eng:

Because we're talking about what is it? The ones that can maneuver?

Brian Eng:

Yeah. There's the-

Dave Eng:

Oh, turrets versus-

Brian Eng:

Turrets versus, I mean, I know the ships, I forget what the terminology is now because I've all focused on-

Dave Eng:

It's like TIE fighters versus Y-Wings versus-

Brian Eng:

Versus Bombers versus TIE fighters versus X-Wings basically. Jousters, that's it.

Dave Eng:

Oh, that's right.

Brian Eng:

Yeah.

Dave Eng:

Well, we did not share a runner up. My runner up was Citadels. Do you remember? We never got to play Citadels. It's not good at two players.

Brian Eng:

I have Citadels. I actually won that one with GeekGold.

Dave Eng:

Oh you did? Oh, in the GeekGold raffle.

Brian Eng:

In GeekGold. Yeah. Yeah, I played it a few times. I enjoy that game.

Dave Eng:

Yeah, that one has, I would say most characters have some sort of Take That. The obvious ones are like assassin. Assassin's the worst. Because if you get assassinated in Citadels, you just lose a turn. And if you're like me and you get assassinated four turns in a row, why am I even here? And there's the thief. The thief steals gold. There's the warlord that can destroy cards. I would say I think maybe half or more than half of the character actions or some sort of Take That.

Brian Eng:

Yeah. And you know what, I'll come back to that, because I have more to talk about those types of games and Take That. So, let's do the next one.

Dave Eng:

Table that one?

Brian Eng:

And then we'll come back to that.

Dave Eng:

So, the next one is-

Brian Eng:

Onto most noteworthy or the biggest game...

Dave Eng:

Most noteworthy or the biggest. Okay. So, I'll lead off again, Brian.

Brian Eng:

Sure.

Dave Eng:

So, you brought this up before. I'd say the most noteworthy one is Sorry! and you brought it up before. Sorry! is actually based off of the original game I think was called Ludo. And then the game that iterated on that is Parcheesi, which is-

Brian Eng:

I know Parcheesi, but I didn't know Ludo. I don't think so.

Dave Eng:

And then Sorry! is the iteration on Parcheesi. So, with, Sorry! if you've never played it first, the Take That is the Sorry! cards because it basically sends players' pieces all the back to the start. And the whole objective of the game is to get your pieces of the circle of board and bring them back home. So, whenever you have to send someone's pieces back home, it's super debilitating for them. While I don't think it's as popular, I think that the game that I prefer that has the same action is Trouble because...

Brian Eng:

Trouble? I was going to say Trouble. Yeah.

Dave Eng:

Because basically it's just like, it's a game that's wrapped around that bubble thing. As a kid, I just wanted to press the bubble. Because the bubble-

Brian Eng:

The pop-o-matic bubble.

Dave Eng:

Yeah. Yeah, that's the most fun part. One, because it's really satisfying. Two-

Brian Eng:

That is a commercial from our childhood. The younger generations listening will not know what the heck we're talking about.

Dave Eng:

Exactly. But also the bubble means you'll never lose those dice because they're trapped inside of the bubble.

Brian Eng:

True, yes.

Dave Eng:

So, I don't think you can really get over Sorry! as a more iconic Take That game. And I feel like it's named after, it's the game for Canadians. Sorry!

Brian Eng:

Do you know which one was the one that added the card that you could go in reverse?

Dave Eng:

I mean, I feel like-

Brian Eng:

I think it's Trouble, oh sorry. I think it's Sorry! but-

Dave Eng:

It might be a newer iteration of Sorry! I don't remember any cards like that...

Brian Eng:

The only reason I remember that is because the strategy in that game for me was very strategic use of the reverse. Because if you come out of your starting area and you're very close to your starting area and you use the reverse, you can backtrack and you backtrack basically so that all you have to do is come back into your starting area again.

Dave Eng:

Oh, okay. Yeah, that's...

Brian Eng:

So, you got to use it at the right time.

Dave Eng:

Yep, yep. I agree.

Brian Eng:

But I mean, I try to avoid those games. I can't remember which one had that.

Dave Eng:

I don't think it's Sorry! because I think I would've remembered that card. Unless again, it's...

Brian Eng:

Well, it wasn't Trouble because Trouble used the dice, not the cards. Right?

Dave Eng:

Yeah. So, I guess it has to be Sorry!

Brian Eng:

Yeah, I don't know. Yeah, maybe there's a newer Sorry!

Dave Eng:

Or something.

Brian Eng:

I'm sure there's many versions. Because that was the era of just a million versions of the 10 different games there were. Okay. So, yeah. So, that was your most noteworthy?

Dave Eng:

Yes. Your most noteworthy.

Brian Eng:

Okay. So, this one could have been interchangeable as far as I'm concerned with Arcs as my favorite. A relatively new, I guess it's not new anymore, but I picked Blood Rage. Huge game when it came out. One of pioneer big games for kick starting games. I think in that game it's Viking themed area control, lots of combat, but I think a lot of it comes into the combat cards. When you combat, you have point values or strength values for your units in the areas that you want to fight for. And then you add these combat cards, but the combat cards can have secondary actions. So, there are combat cards that basically let you just steal the other person's combat cards.

You can nullify the powers of the other person's combat cards. You can add, I mean they're standard, just adding bonuses to your own combat cards and stuff like that. And then one of the things that really kind of leans into the Take That is, so there's a lot of the Norse, the cards are based on Norse gods. And there's called the Loki strategy. So, the Loki cards are, again, God of mischief is to kind of mess with things. So, generally the Loki strategy is his cards allow you to gain points for losing your troops or losing combat or losing your troops. So, you can kind of psych people out by getting ready to go for something or forcing people into a battle that you can't win, just to make them waste resources. And then you're getting a bunch of points because you're dying. And then that obviously leads into the meta that you might be faking, that you're doing the Loki strategy and things like that. So, there's that. And then some more generic Take That stuff in it too.

So, the combat cards are drafted 7 Wonders style. So, that brings in hate drafting because you can see what people have built up in previous ages because it's area control. There are limited spaces for armies in the different zones on the board. So, you can block people out of areas completely. You can force people into areas. So, after each age, Ragnarok happens and an area of the board gets decimated. So, you can force people to put their powerful troops into these areas and then just gets destroyed by Ragnarok, things like that. So, lots of great Take That in that game. I think it won out for what I thought was most noteworthy. So, I put it here instead of favorite, but it's definitely up there for a favorite game for me as well.

Dave Eng:

Yeah.

Brian Eng:

Did you have some runners up in your most noteworthy as well?

Dave Eng:

I had a runner up. I was really surprised by you said Blood Rage because I was like, yeah, I think it's noteworthy. But I was like, I don't know if you can get more noteworthy than Sorry! but that's just me.

Brian Eng:

No. But I was kind of avoiding the classic games. I generally try to stick to the-

Dave Eng:

Modern.

Brian Eng:

... boutiquey games, modern boutique games. And I knew I was kind of mentioning it in first as well. Yeah, I mean it's definitely the most iconic, but I think just in modern games, the impact that Blood Rage had, even just on how many people really knew game designers by name unless there were like us, right?

Dave Eng:

Yeah. Like Eric Lang.

Brian Eng:

Eric Lang became a household name for a little bit at least in terms of board game crowds for his next bunch of games.

Dave Eng:

Well, I guess on that note, my runner-up is Backgammon. I don't think you can get old. I mean, you can get pretty old.

Brian Eng:

Yeah, that's another classic.

Dave Eng:

But Jenny taught me how to play Backgammon originally, I had no idea. I knew Backgammon was old, but just the whole idea that you can get your checkers blotted and returned to the bar, that's pretty Take That, right? Especially if you turn all your checkers and it's based on, Sorry! Is based on that model, having your checkers run the board and bring them back on.

Brian Eng:

And then bring them back. Right, right. Yeah, that's a good one. So, my runner-up, I kind of bunched in social deduction games. Now, obviously not all of them, so coming back to you talked about Citadels, which I think falls into that. I had a Love Letter and COUP as kind of examples, but the same idea where just as I was thinking about, I was like, yeah, there's a number of social deduction games where there is a Take That element to some of the roles. I think another one that just just came to mind was Bang! The Dice Game where it's like you have to attack a person beside you left or right, and you can play it off as, oh well I'm forced to attack them. I didn't mean to attack you or whatever. That kind of thing. So, there's that kind of maliciousness in the actions.

Dave Eng:

But it's like, oh, you're on my left.

Brian Eng:

Citadels is probably a better example. I don't play that one as much. So, it didn't come to mind. COUP is actually the one that came to mind first.

Dave Eng:

Yeah, well I mean it's because COUP I think is just more applicable, more accessible I'd say.

Brian Eng:

Right. Yeah. I think you had introduced me to COUP and I-

Dave Eng:

Yeah, way back when.

Brian Eng:

I fell in love with that game. I started introducing it to everyone, because it was nice because I could introduce to people who didn't play board games and it wasn't a huge commitment. So, yeah, that was my runner-up for most noteworthy.

Dave Eng:

Nice.

Brian Eng:

So, I think that finishes up our major examples segment.

Dave Eng:

So, we are going into the new segment. So, beyond the basics.

Brian Eng:

Is that what we're calling it? I don't even know what we call it anymore.

Dave Eng:

Yeah, I mean we're calling it beyond the basics, but last episode-

Brian Eng:

Still keeping the name.

Dave Eng:

If you're listening and you caught the last episode of AP Table Talk where we talked about the rock-paper-scissors mechanic. We started with this new segment. So, originally in beyond the basics, we would dive even deeper into the mechanic, but we changed it up to be, and this is very appropriate for this episode, much more contentious in that we're going to have a debate. And Brian, correct me if I'm wrong with this, we're both going to roll our D20. So, whoever rolls higher is going to take the pro side of the debate, meaning that they are big proponent of this mechanic and whoever rolls lower is going to take the con side. So, they are not a fan of this mechanic. Is that still good, Brian?

Brian Eng:

Yeah. Yeah, I think that works out.

Dave Eng:

All right. So, I've got my die handy. I'll leave it up to you to roll.

Brian Eng:

Ready?

Dave Eng:

Yep.

Brian Eng:

All right, here we go. Oh, I'm not doing good today. Three.

Dave Eng:

I rolled a seven. Okay. All right. Well I'm still taking the pro.

Brian Eng:

Okay. Okay, so then we said the pro leads.

Dave Eng:

Yeah, pro leads.

Brian Eng:

And I'll counter your points.

Dave Eng:

All right, so I'm going to make my point, my first pro point and then I'll give you time to counter and we'll go that way.

Brian Eng:

Sure. Sounds good.

Dave Eng:

All right. All right. So, my big pro for Take That is that I think it overall heightens player interaction. So, with Take That it forces players to constantly assess not only your own position, but I think everyone else, and I think this is a really good addition to what a lot of modern Euro games are very much like multiplayer solitaire. But with Take That you are not just worried about what you're doing, but you're also worried about what other people are doing and you're going to try to take actions to counter that. So, my example here is Root, even though I'm not a huge fan of that game, because, Brian, we tried to play it in the darkest hotel lobby possible after a long day of convention, which was not conducive...

Brian Eng:

Yes, that's not the way, that was not the way to learn that game.

Dave Eng:

But the reason why I bring up Root is because it's a war game. It doesn't look like a war game but it is. And there's coalition shifting and targeted plays that make every move like personal and strategic. And that's why I think that Take That is a great mechanic because it forces higher player interaction.

Brian Eng:

Okay. So, yes, there's definitely, I mean, I don't think you could argue that there isn't player interaction with Take That there has to be by definition. However, I think that that interaction, it can promote kingmaking and ganging up. It's very much encourages retaliation and grudge play. So, that interaction becomes negative play experience for many people. I mean, I don't have specific examples, but generally if you're just harassing someone with Take That, then their goal of that game now becomes just for you to lose as opposed for them to win.

Dave Eng:

Yeah, yeah, it just becomes personal.

Brian Eng:

Right. Right.

Dave Eng:

I mean you could even say going back to Risk, right? Because Risk, you could make it to such a point where it's like, well, I can't win, but I can help whoever the remaining players win with some sort of kingmaking strategy.

Brian Eng:

Right. And that negative kind of antagonistic play I think also makes it a poor fit for cooperative games or educational games, things like that, which is your field.

Dave Eng:

Yeah, exactly. But I don't like kingmaking.

Brian Eng:

Yeah, I think it can very much polarize player groups. So, yeah, that's my counter to that point.

Dave Eng:

Okay. I'll lead off with my next point.

Brian Eng:

The creating the negative player experience basically. Yeah, go ahead.

Dave Eng:

Yes, yeah. I feel like this is really difficult for you, Brian, because you really wanted pro on Take That.

Brian Eng:

Yes, yes, I did. I'm basically just lying to you.

Dave Eng:

Oh, okay. That's all right. I feel like I am just going to support your points because I want to argue for the negative. So, my...

Brian Eng:

This is a real exercise for us, right?

Dave Eng:

Real exercise. Yeah, academic exercise. So, my other positive is I think that high player interaction with Take That also the overall drama and narrative for the game. So, I think that a lot of the most memorable highs and low moments in games are you either were able to ruin someone else or got ruined yourself. And my example would be Munchkin you brought up before, because sometimes you need to build a coalition in order to beat a creature, but other times you'll need the help and then you'll get betrayed. And I think that those moments, I still remember some of those moments in Munchkin even though I don't play a lot of Munchkin anymore. But I think that the overall inform the drama and narrative of Take That.

Brian Eng:

You know what, I don't think I have anything about narrative. Because I felt that it wasn't direct ... the mechanic wasn't directly impactful one way or the other in my opinion. Theme in Take That I think it didn't really apply because it's up to ... It's one of those ones where it's like I feel like the design, if you can design the theme to it, then you can have a good theme. So, I don't have a direct counter to that point other than I just don't think they're related.

Dave Eng:

Can I offer up a counterpoint?

Brian Eng:

Sure, yeah, go for it.

Dave Eng:

So, I think the counterpoint to the narrative, it's not necessarily the theme I'm talking about, talking about the whole player experience because you brought that up before about making it...

Brian Eng:

Yeah, I mean just as general negative player experience for people. But yeah, go ahead. Say your point.

Dave Eng:

My counterpoint to my own point was that Take That, it lacks meaningful mitigation. I think that there's one game I did play that I think had meaningful mitigation, but otherwise I think that with a lot of Take That games, especially if they're quote-unquote Ameritrash games, it just feels like you're just getting punched basically. Like, oh, I've just taken this away from you. So, the big ones here would be UNO with the draw four or Trouble sending someone back. The game I'm referring to, I played it with the Banditos, do you know, I'm the Boss! Brian?

Brian Eng:

I know I've heard of it, but I don't know the game off the top of my head.

Dave Eng:

I think it's on one of Tom Vasel's like top lists.

Brian Eng:

Okay.

Dave Eng:

But it's basically like it's kind of like Munchkin in that you circle the board you need to make a deal, and then with the deal, everyone represents a family member. And then you need to either contribute your own family members to meet the deal requirements or get other people to agree to the deal, lend their family members, and then you split the money accordingly based on how people contribute. But I feel like it does happen to me during the game. I land on a space, I'm going to make a deal and if someone can just play the “I'm the Boss!” card and it's like I'm not making a deal anymore, they're making a deal.

So, it's like, oh, I could have made this deal on my own without any cooperation from anyone else. And they're like, someone else will play the I'm the Boss! card and I'm like, oh, you know what? I'm making a deal now. So, now you're not making any money. I'm making all the money. And then you could play, I'm the Boss! card back. And then I think one turn, we just played three I'm the Boss! cards back and forth until I ran out and I was like, okay, I guess I'm not making this deal.

Brian Eng:

Okay, well, your assisted counterpoint there, it kind of leads into one. So, I'm going to lead on a point here since I had no response to your last one here. Because I kind of lumped that into strategy or strategic depth in that many Take That actions kind of reduce strategic depth because they rely on luck as you're drawing the right card and really can undermine any sort of planning in the game. So, it's very disruptive to the game flow or to any sort of progress because you could have built up working towards something and then somebody gets a card and just completely ends that thing. So, it discourages long-term planning.

Dave Eng:

Yep. Yeah, I can see that. Especially if you are playing in the moment, right?

Brian Eng:

Right. Yeah. Just from a strategy stand. Yeah, discourages strategic play basically.

Dave Eng:

Got it.

Brian Eng:

And kind of increases, I guess, randomness, swinginess maybe.

Dave Eng:

Yeah, it feels swingy, especially if you're just like, oh, I got this card, I have to Take That against someone. I guess it'll be you because I don't know anyone else. My counterpoint to that, it's not a direct counterpoint, because it's more of a tactical counterpoint than the strategy one is that, like you said before, I think Take That, it forces players to calculate not just an optimal play for them, which in a lot of Eurogames you're trying to do, but you also want those denial plays against other people like you're talking about with X-Wing, right?

Ideally you can do something that puts you in a really good position and puts the opponent in a really bad position or you take something from them. So, I think that games that do this would be Star Realms because it's generally a two-player deck-building game or Dominion, which is also two-player. It's a deck-building game, but not two-player. Because it allows you to incorporate these disruption-based strategies, which for the record, I really hate, because in Dominion I'm just like, just let me build my deck, man. Why are you making me discard cards right now? I have a really good hand for the next play.

Brian Eng:

Which is the part of the game that I like.

Dave Eng:

Just deny. It's like, you know, how about you discard a bunch of cards right now? Because I know that you got a really good hand, you could do something huge next hand.

Brian Eng:

Exactly, yes.

Dave Eng:

So, that is my not strategy, but tactical counterpoint I guess...

Brian Eng:

Right. Right. Yeah, I mean just going through those options. I think I've run my counterpoints already.

Dave Eng:

All your counterpoints?

Brian Eng:

My main ones. I mean I might be able to speak to something if you have more points, I might be able to counter them, but-

Dave Eng:

Okay. Well I have one that-

Brian Eng:

This is a hard one for me because everything is like, I don't really believe this.

Dave Eng:

You feel so compromised basically by having to argue for the opposite side. But I still think it's a good academic activity.

Brian Eng:

Yes, no, no, it's definitely good to-

Dave Eng:

Because I don't like-

Brian Eng:

... look at the counterpoint.

Dave Eng:

I want to argue the other side. So, my other point here, and I'm bringing up the game that we're actually playing right now in BGA that I really like, King of Tokyo: Duel.

Brian Eng:

That's been really fun actually.

Dave Eng:

Yeah, because I was like, I had King of Tokyo, I played it. I thought it was okay, but I traded away because I didn't really feel like I needed it. But King of Tokyo: Duel I think is the best iteration of King of Tokyo. And my point here for Take That is that I think that in addition to enhancing the drama and narrative, I think that it has a lot of emotional engagement because I think a well-timed Take That move injects a lot of adrenaline in the game.

And I think a few of our games, Brian, with King of Tokyo: Duel was just like, okay, well on this turn I've got to roll a bunch of claws because I can't win on the tug of war with the tokens on the board. So, we got to really hope that I can knock you out this move. Because if I don't, then it's game over for me. And I think that that aspect is very appealing for me, someone who doesn't Take That because it's like I got to make this work, or I got to find some other way to stop your play in some way on the next turn.

Brian Eng:

I can counter that point. So, you're talking about the excitement of the Take That action and I would say the counter that being so by definition, the Take That actions do not eliminate the player from the game. But I think that many Take That types of actions, especially the ones I enjoy, can eliminate a player in spirit from the game. And that being the opposite of yes, you get that excitement for some, but the other person basically they're just going through the motions of this game now because they're not technically out but they can't do anything. They can't play anything. It's the same feeling you get when you're way behind in a Eurogame.

Dave Eng:

Yeah.

Brian Eng:

Just like, well, I know what my next two hours is going to be like.

Dave Eng:

Well, I mean I think that's a good, a side comment here, I think that's a good reason they have hidden scoring.

Brian Eng:

Yes, yes.

Dave Eng:

Because then you never know if you're really out and then you still have some hope, which I mean, I think someone could argue is not good, but I'd rather have that false hope and still have a good time playing than not having any hope.

Brian Eng:

Right. Yeah. Just to go on a tangent about King of Tokyo: Duel, I've also been enjoying it. I was not a huge fan of the original King. I didn't play it a bunch, but I didn't really, it was a take it or leave it game for me. But I've been joining King of Tokyo: Duel so much that I had a thought while we were playing the other day. It was like, oh, I wonder how this would be with more than two players.

Dave Eng:

Be King of Tokyo. You know what?

Brian Eng:

And I'm like, oh, well apparently I didn't like it.

Dave Eng:

We have to include a Simpsons quote. Do you remember the one with Milhouse about speed? Oh, it's like Speed 2, but on a bus.

Brian Eng:

So, yeah, that is how much the original King of Tokyo had gone out of my mind.

Dave Eng:

Which I don't think-

Brian Eng:

I find that a lot of those duel ones do that like 7 Wonders Duel for a lot of people. That's the way to play the game. I still like the original 7 Wonders. I don't actually feel that they're, I mean I guess King of Tokyo is a little different than the duel. Like duel is a bunch of tug-of-wars basically. And 7 Wonders Duel is other than using the theme and iconography and stuff, it's not really the same game.

Dave Eng:

I would argue that. But it is one of those things where it's like, well, we have this really valuable IP. So, how do we use it as much as possible? That's what I think, you know...

Brian Eng:

I enjoy both of them, but I don't think that, to me, what is nice about a lot of the dual games, what kind of works against them for me is if I own 7 Wonders for a long time and 7 Wonders Duel came and it was really good, but I wouldn't buy it because I'm like, well I already have 7 Wonders. And that was in my mind. And then the rethemed version, the Lord of the Rings one came and I'm like, okay, I can buy it now. But really they weren't the same. I don't think that someone that enjoys both of those, that they exclude each other because I think they're different enough that you could have both in your collection.

Dave Eng:

Right, right. Yeah, I think so.

Brian Eng:

All right. Do you have any other points to our debate here?

Dave Eng:

No, I think that we said our piece here with most of them. You want to move on to our bonus round?

Brian Eng:

Sure. I don't actually have a lot in bonus. Again, a lot of it was just kind of iterating my own thoughts on my living definition of Take That games. So, again, I feel for me a lot of it is the intent of play. So, the definition holds for if you had to have some sort of strict guidelines. But there's definitely a lot to do with that kind of malicious play. And it's more about, I guess you could look at it of levels. So, there's non-Take That actions, which is just you progressing towards the finish line. There's by definition Take That which is stopping someone else from progressing. And then there's the malicious, which is not only can I stop you from progressing, but I can take something from you, which also helps me. So, the kind of levels which of Take That, it's more of a spectrum I guess as opposed to a binary choice.

Dave Eng:

And we're on the same page that because it's a spectrum you could take a Take That action and not even realize it's Take That like, oh, I've done it and I have totally screwed you over. But that wasn't my intention. I think an example would be when we were playing Survive The Island on Board Game Arena, when you turn over a tile and it's like, oh, it's a whirlpool tile and all the pieces that are next to it went into the whirlpool, it got a bunch of my pieces, but it got a bunch of your pieces too. And that wasn't my intent, but it just kind of happened that way.

Brian Eng:

And I think now that I'm thinking as you mentioned that a lot of Worker Placement games, when you block someone, you didn't necessarily do it on purpose, which is maybe why I didn't really consider Worker Placement in its own right as a Take That type thing. Because a lot of the times, yes, there is some times where I'm strategically I'm Blocking something, but many times you block someone and just because you wanted it to go there, you didn't really have any intention to block them.

Dave Eng:

Well, I mean to your point before, Brian, that block is a denial play.

Brian Eng:

Right.

Dave Eng:

You've gotten the wood or whatever...

Brian Eng:

It's definitely-

Dave Eng:

... or whatever.

Brian Eng:

It's definitely a Take That action by definition, but if I didn't do it to maliciously block you, it doesn't feel like a Take That action in my mind.

Dave Eng:

And I would say that that was one of the points actually, Brian, I had for bonus round in that I think that originally with Ameritrash games, it was all about Take That. I call this the approach that is very ham-fisted, like the turnover a card, and it's just like you lose a turn. Okay, I guess that doesn't look great because no one did it to me. I just turned over a card and I lost a turn.

Brian Eng:

And I think there's a difference too, between what has evolved, lose a turn cards in UNO or picking up a lose turn card, right?

Dave Eng:

Yeah.

Brian Eng:

Those don't feel good. But I don't necessarily agree, at least for a player like me, there's many Take That actions, which can happen to me, but I still enjoy it because it's fun to me in the game. Even if it's happening to me, yes, it's frustrating, but that to me is kind of fun because it's part of that game. Whereas, yeah, if it's just a random, you lose a turn, that's not fun. That's just annoying.

Dave Eng:

It's just frustrating.

Brian Eng:

Right.

Dave Eng:

Okay, so let's talk, because we talked about it on a spectrum. You brought that up before. What do you think about Diplomacy? Because Diplomacy you could say has Take That, but it's all structured around the relationships with other players. So, you have to be like, we're going to totally screw over Brian this turn. You're making an active choice to do that.

Brian Eng:

I mean, again, the decisions made are going to be on that spectrum and betrayal to me or the backstabbing, that is a high Take That action because it's purposeful, it's targeted, it's purposeful and it's malicious. You're doing it to screw that person. You know you're doing it and you're targeting specifically someone. You are maybe not eliminating them from the game, but you're definitely screwing them.

Dave Eng:

So, I mean, could you say that Diplomacy is the most Take Thaty of Take Thaty games because it checks all three boxes?

Brian Eng:

I mean, it's definitely up there. I only know about it. So, when I got into Rising Sun, which a lot of people called kind of a spiritual, not successor, but in the spirit of Diplomacy, it was compared to it. And I was talking to somebody at the place where I was working, a coworker at the time, and they weren't having any of that because they used to play Diplomacy all the time. And I didn't know. So, I only know what he told me about Diplomacy. I've never played Diplomacy. And he's like, "No, it's completely different." The only thing that's the same is basically making alliances and then betraying.

Dave Eng:

I know, right? But that's the whole point of the game. So, I guess it's the most Take Thaty of Take Thaty games, right?

Brian Eng:

Yeah. I mean you could say it. I'd have a hard time ... I can't say that without ever having played the game.

Dave Eng:

Right. I've never played the game either.

Brian Eng:

It's hard for me to argue that point.

Dave Eng:

I'm just like, I don't know if I want to play the game. It's like watching...

Brian Eng:

It makes me want to play the game more.

Dave Eng:

Oh no. But it's like watching a really ... I'm not into horror films, but it's a horror film that someone who's really into horror films highly recommends people watch. And I'm like, I don't know if I want to watch that, because I can't unsee it then just like with Diplomacy, I can't ever feel not hurt by playing Diplomacy. Because I know that it'll be a one-time experience. So, the other thing I wanted to bring up, Brian, is since we're talking about Diplomacy and the social dynamic, what do you think about, we talked about kingmaking and the metagame around the revenge. Okay, you did this to me. Now I'm in a position where I could really hurt. I could Take That against anyone else, but I'm going to do it to you, not because it makes the most logical sense, but I'm like, well, you hurt me, is I'm going to hurt you back. Would you feel that is a critical aspect of Take That?

Brian Eng:

I think that it can be used beneficially because it brings an emotional element into the game. And I think that some games from how it was described to me, Diplomacy being one of those games, is at games where you can table talk and things like that is you can use that as an element of the game to try and swing people's actions. So, it's like, oh, this person betrayed another player in the game and now you have this opportunity to do this. It's like, "Hey, remember when they did this to you? Now's your chance to get them back." And that kind of playing the players as opposed to the game. So, I think that it can be designed to be a positive element in the game.

Dave Eng:

And do you feel like based on that it can come about it is kingmaking, do you feel like that's a spoiling tactic in the game?

Brian Eng:

Kingmaking not as much of a fan of, I don't like that because it makes that win feel unearned. But at the same time, to my last point, I mean if you made so many enemies in a game and that that's a possibility in that game, then it becomes an element of the-

Dave Eng:

The play, the strategy.

Brian Eng:

... of the strategy. Now, I think that it becomes this fine line of was the kingmaking because of your actions in the game or is it kingmaking because this person just doesn't like you? Because I've had players where people in the group don't like each other. And so it has nothing to do with the specific game, it's just that, well, they don't like, so it came down to this last play where they could basically decide the winner. They don't like the guy, so they're going to make it go this way. I was like, I don't really like that so much.

Dave Eng:

Right, right, right, because that's more of the-

Brian Eng:

That's personal right?

Dave Eng:

I wouldn't even say it's part of the metagame, it's like a personal relationship.

Brian Eng:

Yeah, that's a personal attack as opposed to as much as you're playing it ... I play Take That actions like a personal attack, but it's not personal. It's the fun of the game. So, that aspect I don't like so much, but if everyone is in the same mindset of personal in the sense of these actions happened in the game, so now I'm retaliating within this game that way. Now you talked about playing someone where you guys just went against each other. Was it I'm the Boss! or whatever?

Dave Eng:

Yeah. Yeah.

Brian Eng:

Right. So, in my gaming group, many games, it's me and one of the guys who hosts most of the time, Tom, we mostly fight each other.

Dave Eng:

Just you two?

Brian Eng:

Yeah. Part of that is we generally have the higher win percentages in the games. So, we generally target each other because we see each other as the larger threats. And where I would say that that could be a problem for game groups where you have this kind of side rivalry, but it kind of works out because our committing our attention against each other so much allows some of the weaker players to sidestep us and win games. So, because I think if we were playing without focusing so much on each other, I think that those other players may never get a chance in many of the games that we play to even come close to winning because we would eliminate them from being a threat early on and then just focus-

Dave Eng:

And then focus on each other.

Brian Eng:

But because we know that neither of us wants to be the one who tricks our attention off the other person. So, it's always immediate alert, Tom, I got to make sure that he is not getting any sort of start at all. I'll admit it can be frustrating sometimes. We got heated playing a game of Eclipse to the point where he texted me after saying, "Hey, sorry I was being a jerk or whatever." And I'm the kind of person, I like to do a lot of table talking and goading and things like that. But we worked it out after I was like, "I was not upset." That's the game. To me, that was the game.

Dave Eng:

Well, tell me if this quotation, I don't know if it totally meets your definition, but you saw Rounders, you remember that movie from the '90s with Matt Damon?

Brian Eng:

Yep.

Dave Eng:

There's that scene where they all go to Atlantic City and they're playing in the Taj Mahal in the poker room there, and it's all the rounders from New York. They're all professional card players, but they're all sitting at the same table and then they're really playing to just play against the fish, the people that don't know how to play, they just want to take their money. And then I remember Matt Damon's character says, "We're all sitting at the table together. We're not playing with each other, but we're also not playing against each other at the table. We're there for a specific reason and we take our opportunities, tactical and strategic opportunity as we will." But they have this kind of, I don't know if you'd call it a meta game or collusion at that point, but they're like, they're not getting each other's way because they're not there to play each other.

Brian Eng:

Kind of like an understood-

Dave Eng:

Like a truce, alliance.

Brian Eng:

Alliance, yeah. Like a hidden alliance kind of.

Dave Eng:

Right. The other thing I wanted to bring up, Brian, is because we're talking so much about relationships, would you say that with a cooperative game, there's no Take That by definition because we all have to play together, or does Take That have to be embodied by a person or can it be-

Brian Eng:

I think Take That has to be from one player-

Dave Eng:

Player.

Brian Eng:

... against another player. So, I think that by definition, I don't think you can have cooperative Take That in the game. If you had one versus many, that's different, right? Because there is a-

Dave Eng:

There's a player-

Brian Eng:

There's a competitive side still there, so that you can have Take That then. But that now leads into one versus many is very similar to a two-player game then where it's like, well, every action is a Take That action.

Dave Eng:

Yeah. That's true.

Brian Eng:

I don't feel that even if it's cooperative, like players versus the game, it's not really Take That then, in my opinion. I think it is on a personal level, you're attacking the person. There's, again, maliciousness plays a big part for me. I'm doing this. I mean some people call it screwage, right? As a synonym for Take That it's screwage. So, yeah, you got to screw someone. For it to be Take That action it's got to be screwed somebody.

Dave Eng:

And the last point I wanted to make here, and we brought it up before, but I don't think we discussed it in depth, was with Scythe. Because Scythe is one of my favorite games, even though I don't get to play it often, but what originally came out, people thought it was a wargame. It's not a wargame, it's a Eurogame where you're building an engine and then sometimes-

Brian Eng:

In fact there's a lot of deterrents to battle.

Dave Eng:

Right, right. But I feel like every game of Scythe has had at least one battle, and it's usually the battle that ends the game, because it gets your last star. So, I'd say that, and I think this is a really good interpretation of how Take That is used in modern tabletop gaming because there's still a Take That component. It's not the main thing you do, but it can be a significant thing that you do in the game. And I think the Scythe example is that it's the ultimate thing that you do in order to close out the game or finish it out.

Brian Eng:

Yeah, I mean, I think as a general rule of thumb, generally, because it's so divisive, I think that you kind of want to use it sparingly unless that's the whole purpose of your game. If your game is like, this game is like Munchkin, the whole point of the game is just to screw with each other. That's different. But for general games, you use it sparingly. And I mean, you can tell that even from the designer's preferences. If you look at, you talked about Scythe, we know that Jamey Stegmaier, he doesn't like negative player interaction. He doesn't like conflict, player conflict, so he doesn't really have a lot of that in his games.

Dave Eng:

And I think when they are there, there's some Take That, Birds in Wingspan, there's obviously battles in Scythe.

Brian Eng:

Yeah, he doesn't leave it out completely, but it's definitely minimal in his games.

Dave Eng:

Yeah. Yeah. It's not a feature, I think.

Brian Eng:

And I mean I take that to speak to his design skill because I enjoy many of his games, even though I prefer much more confrontation in my games. But I think I have any of the ones I've played, to some extent, Scytheis up there for me, probably in the top five.

Dave Eng:

Nice. Those are all my points, Brian, for a bonus round.

Brian Eng:

Yeah.

Dave Eng:

Anything else?

Brian Eng:

Nope, I think I'm good.

Dave Eng:

All right. That was a good conversation.

Brian Eng:

Yeah. So, yeah, I guess that wraps up our Take That 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 at 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 lift 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

Alliances. (n.d.). Board game mechanic. Retrieved July 30, 2025, from https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgamemechanic/2916/alliances

Ameritrash. (n.d.). BoardGameGeek Wiki. Retrieved July 30, 2025, from https://boardgamegeek.com/wiki/page/Ameritrash

Area Majority / Influence. (n.d.). Board game mechanic. Retrieved July 30, 2025, from https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgamemechanic/2080/area-majority-influence

Baines, A., Medina, D., & Healy, C. (2023, January 26). Using debate as an educational tool. Edutopia. Retrieved July 30, 2025, from https://www.edutopia.org/article/using-debate-educational-tool/

Bauza, A., & Cathala, B. (2024). The Lord of the Rings: Duel for Middle‑earth. Asmodee / Fantasy Flight Games. Retrieved July 30, 2025, from https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/421006/the-lord-of-the-rings-duel-for-middle-earth

Calhamer, A.B. (1959). Diplomacy. Avalon Hill. Retrieved July 30, 2025, from https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/483/diplomacy

Closed Drafting. (n.d.). Board game mechanic. Retrieved July 30, 2025, from https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgamemechanic/2984/closed-drafting

Cole, W. (2023). Arcs. Leder Games. Retrieved July 30, 2025, from https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/359871/arcs

Courtland‑Smith, J. (2024). Survive The Island. Zygomatic. Retrieved July 30, 2025, from https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/425428/survive-the-island

Dahl, J. (Director). (1998). Rounders [Film]. Miramax Films. Retrieved July 30, 2025, from https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0128442/

Deck, Bag, and Pool Building. (n.d.). Board game mechanic. Retrieved July 30, 2025, from https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgamemechanic/2664/deck-bag-and-pool-building

Dougherty, R., & Kastle, D. (2014). Star Realms. Wise Wizard Games. Retrieved July 30, 2025, from https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/147020/star-realms

Eng, D. (2017, April 16). Luck vs skill. Retrieved July 30, 2025, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2017/4/16/id-rather-be-lucky-than-good

Eng, D. (2019, August 13). Narratives, toys, puzzles, games. Retrieved July 30, 2025, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2019/8/13/narratives-toys-puzzles-games

Eng, D. (2019, December 10). Decision space. Retrieved July 30, 2025, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2019/12/10/decision-space

Eng, D. (2019, December 3). Core loops. Retrieved July 30, 2025, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2019/12/3/core-loops

Eng, D. (2019, July 31). Fun factors. Retrieved July 30, 2025, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2019/7/31/fun-factors

Eng, D. (2019, September 10). The player experience. Retrieved July 30, 2025, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2019/9/10/the-player-experience

Eng, D. (2019, September 17). Player interaction. Retrieved July 30, 2025, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2019/9/17/player-interaction

Eng, D. (2019, September 26). Game theme. Retrieved July 30, 2025, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2019/9/26/game-theme

Eng, D. (2020, December 3). Game mechanics for learning. Retrieved July 30, 2025, from http://www.universityxp.com/blog/2020/12/3/game-mechanics-for-learning

Eng, D. (2020, February 13). Engagement curves. Retrieved July 30, 2025, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2020/2/13/engagement-curves

Eng, D. (2020, May 28). What are interactive experiences? Retrieved July 30, 2025, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2020/5/28/what-are-interactive-experiences

Eng, D. (2021, February 9). What is self-determination theory? Retrieved July 30, 2025, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2021/2/9/what-is-self-determination-theory

Eng, D. (2021, July 6). What is kingmaking? Retrieved July 30, 2025, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2021/7/6/what-is-kingmaking

Eng, D. (2022, August 30). What is yomi? Retrieved July 30, 2025, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2022/8/30/what-is-yomi

Eng, D. (2022, September 27). What is strategy in gameplay? Retrieved July 30, 2025, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2022/9/27/what-is-strategy-in-gameplay

Eng, D. (2023, April 11). What are tactics? Retrieved July 30, 2025, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2023/4/11/what-are-tactics

Eng, D. (2023, December 5). What is the game state? Retrieved July 30, 2025, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2023/12/5/what-is-the-game-state

Eng, D. (2024, May 28). What are educational games? Retrieved July 30, 2025, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2024/5/28/what-are-educational-games

Exeunt Press. (2023, May 23). Losing on purpose with the Loki strategy. Retrieved July 30, 2025, from https://www.skeletoncodemachine.com/p/losing-on-purpose-with-the-loki-strategy/

Faidutti, B. (2000). Citadels. Fantasy Flight Games. Retrieved July 30, 2025, from https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/478/citadels

Garfield, R. (2011). King of Tokyo. IELLO.Retrieved July 30, 2025, from https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/70323/king-of-tokyo

Garfield, R. (2024). King of Tokyo: Duel. IELLO.Retrieved July 30, 2025, from https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/422484/king-of-tokyo-duel

Hargrave, E. (2019). Wingspan. Stonemaier Games. Retrieved July 30, 2025, from https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/266192/wingspan

Hidden Victory Points. (n.d.). Board game mechanic. Retrieved July 30, 2025, from https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgamemechanic/2987/hidden-victory-points

Jackson, S. (2001). Munchkin. Steve Jackson Games. Retrieved July 30, 2025, from https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/1927/munchkin

Konieczny, P. (2019). Golden age of tabletop gaming: creation of the social capital and rise of third spaces for tabletop gaming in the 21st Century. Polish Sociol. Rev. 2019, 199–215 (2019). https://polish-sociological-review.eu/pdf-117918-46968

Lang, E. M. (2015). Blood Rage. CMON Limited. Retrieved July 30, 2025, from https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/170216/blood-rage

Lang, E. M. (2018). Rising Sun. CMON Limited. Retrieved July 30, 2025, from https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/205896/rising-sun

Le‑Fevre, S. (2022, July 27). People as pieces – social mechanics in games. Ludogogy. Retrieved July 30, 2025, from https://ludogogy.professorgame.com/people-as-pieces-social-mechanics-in-games/

Little, J., & Petersen, C. (2012). Star Wars: X-Wing Miniatures Game. Fantasy Flight Games. Retrieved July 30, 2025, from https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/103885/star-wars-x-wing-miniatures-game

More About Geekgold. (n.d.). BoardGameGeek Wiki. Retrieved July 30, 2025, from https://boardgamegeek.com/wiki/page/More_About_Geekgold/

Palesch, K. (1993). Stick ’Em (originally Sticheln). Amigo Spiele. Retrieved July 30, 2025, from https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/354/stick-em

Player Elimination. (n.d.). Board game mechanic. Retrieved July 30, 2025, from https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgamemechanic/2685/player-elimination

Retrieved July 30, 2025, from https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/246900/eclipse-second-dawn-for-the-galaxy

Rock-Paper-Scissors. (n.d.). Board game mechanic. Retrieved July 30, 2025, from https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgamemechanic/2003/rock-paper-scissors

Sackson, S. (1994). I’m the Boss!. Gryphon Games.Retrieved July 30, 2025, from https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/115/im-the-boss

Scribbl. (2024). Woah, it's like Speed 2 only with a bus instead of a boat (The Simpsons quote) [Video]. YouTube. Retrieved July 30, 2025, from https://youtu.be/UTJr46b-ISY

Seiji, K. (2012). Love Letter. Alderac Entertainment Group. Retrieved July 30, 2025, from https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/129622/love-letter

Slack, J. (2024, December 30). Game mechanics: Mitigating luck. Board Game Design Course. Retrieved July 30, 2025, from https://boardgamedesigncourse.com/game-mechanics-mitigating-luck/

Stegmaier, J. (2016). Scythe. Stonemaier Games. Retrieved July 30, 2025, from https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/169786/scythe

Stegmaier, J. (n.d.). Jamey Stegmaier | Board Game Designer. Retrieved July 30, 2025, from https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgamedesigner/62640/jamey-stegmaier

Sutcliffe, D. (2021, January 1). X‑Wing strategic framework: Part 1 – three pillars and beyond. Stay On The Leader. Retrieved July 30, 2025, from https://stayontheleader.blogspot.com/2021/01/x-wing-strategic-framework-part-1-three.html/

Tahkokallio, T. (2020). Eclipse: Second Dawn for the Galaxy. Lautapelit.fi.

Tahta, R. (2012). Coup. Indie Boards & Cards; La Mame Games. Retrieved July 30, 2025, from https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/131357/coup

Take That. (n.d.). Board game mechanic. Retrieved July 30, 2025, from https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgamemechanic/2686/take-that

The Midland Meeple. (2021, January 12). Why we should all love hate drafting. Zatu Games. Retrieved July 30, 2025, from https://www.board-game.co.uk/why-we-should-all-love-hate-drafting/

Trick-taking. (n.d.). Board game mechanic. Retrieved July 30, 2025, from https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgamemechanic/2009/trick-taking

Tug of War. (n.d.). Board game mechanic. Retrieved July 30, 2025, from https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgamemechanic/2888/tug-of-war

Vaccarino, D. X. (2008). Dominion. Rio Grande Games. Retrieved July 30, 2025, from https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/36218/dominion

Wehrle, C. (2018). Root. Leder Games. Retrieved July 30, 2025, from https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/237182/root

Wilson, M. (2025, April ??). Multiplayer Solitaire vs. Bash the Leader. Bumbling Through Dungeons. Retrieved July 30, 2025, from https://bumblingthroughdungeons.com/multiplayer-solitaire-vs-bash-the-leader/

Worker Placement. (n.d.). Board game mechanic. Retrieved July 30, 2025, from https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgamemechanic/2082/worker-placement

Zaccarini, L. (2013). BANG! The Dice Game. dV Giochi. Retrieved July 30, 2025, from https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/143741/bang-the-dice-game

Zada, J. (2024). Why Canadians say "sorry" so often. Retrieved July 30, 2025, from https://www.johnzada.com/blog/why-canadians-say-sorry-so-often/

Cite this Episode:

Eng, D. & Eng, B. (Hosts). (2025, September 7). AP Table Talk: Take That. (No. 146) [Audio podcast episode]. Experience Points. University XP. https://www.universityxp.com/podcast/146

Internal Ref: UXPD9PNPT34S