On the contrary, I’ve found the games to open up as I’ve explored them (at least Vinhos and The Gallerist–the two I’ve played more than twice each). Strategies and openings I didn’t think would be good have found themselves to be viable, and as I understand the game better I understand the subtle P2P interactions better, making them more significant.

I think they’re examples of precisely how this style of game should be–once you get past the discovery period of understanding the rules and how the mechanisms interact, there’s another layer of strategy revolving around the indirect interactions between players/predicting what people will do/being able to see further ahead in the game.

Castles of Burgundy is a good parallel. Once you understand ideal scoring strategies the game becomes about the interaction between the players (particularly at the 2p count), as you weigh things like turn order, the probabilities for particular tiles showing up, etc.

As it happens, the group I game with tends towards the puzzle and low interaction games, apart from one person who’s about to flee the country, so I guess I’ll be getting more Lacerda time.

Cheers

Hmm. Lacerda’s games are all kind of along those lines–about navigating the puzzle of the game mechanisms. Vinhos is probably not the one to try. Interaction is very much about subtle blocking moves. The Gallerist and Lisboa both have more interaction. The Gallerist has a worker placement thing where if you go to a location someone else went to earlier they can get a bonus action (including a full action if they pay for it). That can influence your decisions. There’s also a shared-incentive thing where multiple people can hold works of art from the same artist and both want the value of that to increase.

Lisboa might have the more robust p2p interactions, along multiple lines. You can use other people’s ships, there’s a geography system with blocking moves. I also recall interaction with which cards you use to actually take actions.

But, again, if you’re really looking for strong player interaction Lacerda just might not be the designer for you. That said, I think he’s pretty brilliant and would also encourage you to try more.

I’ve recently tried a couple of Lacerda games – Kanban and CO2 – and I’ve been trying to figure out why I didn’t enjoy them more. The layers and connections within the games I can appreciate, the games seem to promise some excellent synergies if you can figure them out. I should be having a great time, but they haven’t quite hit the mark. I think it’s because they seem to be so much about efficiency and not so much about a player-driven experience. Solve the puzzle and you’ll do well, spend time trying to get in the way of someone else and you’ll likely pay for it. Efficiency is everything and you’ll be punished for deviating.

I know, two games played once each is well short of an informed opinion. I’d like to try another Lacerda to see if it’s more to my liking; the question is – which one?

Cheers