Unique Rules for your First Game, Catan Case Study

I've only just played Catan!
It's the year 2021, and I just played Catan for the first time last Saturday. I know, shock, horror, I should bow out of the community right now. I am japing, of course, but what I will say is that my first session of Catan has been a long time coming. The only reason why I had a copy to play is that it was my birthday last Tuesday, and my brother (who is also a member of my weekly board game group) bought it for me for the occasion. My lack of want regarding making the purchase myself was due to Catan being a 3-4 player game. I play almost all of my games with my partner Meg, so to have a game with a minimum player count of 3 is usually a no-go, but as a member of the group bought it, I could count on us playing it at least once every few weeks, so I decided Catan is the game I wanted. 

​Despite that tangent, I want to talk about more than just Catan, though my case study on the subject will be surrounding Catan. The issue of that case study is unique rules for the first time playing a game. Now, on the surface, the idea of different rules when teaching a game can seem quite odd; it's like teaching someone how to play tennis without a net or racket (this might be a legit teaching method, but it's the best example I could come up with off the top of my head). I've seen this in a few games; Gloomhaven Jaws of the Lion is probably the best example of how to do it perfectly and seamlessly, like a video game almost. Another example is Marvel Villainous, where you play without event cards in your first couple of games. There are loads of examples of rule changes out there, and they all change the first game for the player in different ways. However, with Catan, the differing rules are entirely in the setup, so I wanted to discuss the pros and cons of this idea in-depth to see what we can discover.  
​
​With Catan, as stated, it has a unique setup for your first game. In a regular game, the setup works by randomly placing terrain tiles (resources), followed by randomly and alphabetically placing numbered tokens on the terrain tiles (this rule choice is entirely down to the player). On top of that, then the players take turns in an ABBA system to place down their starting settlements (how you gain resources). Juxtaposed to this random allocation, at the back of the rulebook, it lays out exactly how the terrain and numbered tokens should be placed and exactly where the player's settlements should be for their first game. Now let's talk about all the benefits of this system.

If we quickly look at the guided setup, it is quite masterfully done. 

• Each player is adjacent to 6 terrain tiles.
• Each starting settlement (the settlement with a star next to it) gives each player a direct, unique, and equal path to their first construction and provides each player with enough variety to provoke trade even early on. 
• Each player settlement is adjacent to one common resource (6 dots and red), one rare resource (4 dots and black) and one scarce resource (one to two dots and black). 
• Every player's starting road leads to intersections that connect to a challenged three-way intersection (is adjacent to three terrain tiles rather than two, but you cannot place a settlement there because there is a direct path leading to an enemy settlement). 

Here are the direct pros of these measures of balancing:

• It eliminates choices that the players have to make at the start of the game, of which they do not know enough to make an informed decision. 
• It removes imbalances in the terrain, which cannot be reliably counteracted by player choices in starting location due to lack of knowledge. 
• It removes imbalances in numbered tokens which could cause players to feel cheated once they realize which numbered tokens are more like to come up.

​These pros are based on protecting the player from their lack of understanding of the game mechanics initially, allowing them to have a better first-time experience and then to use that experience. All the knowledge they gained from their first time will enable them to make informed decisions when the random setup comes into play on their next game. 

​However, this begs the question, is a random setup a better experience? And with this provocative question, I wanted to open the floor up to the idea that many rulesets for a player's first game could be the best way to play the game. Furthermore, I wanted to add to the notion that maybe ignoring the first time rules might be a better experience in general. All these ideas I think are worth discussing, and none of them reflects, in plain black and white, my views on the subject matter, but let's see where it goes. ​

Is random setup better?
Honestly, it does excite me to see what terrain will be placed and how often that terrain will produce. I can imagine a dense forest that is bountiful, so I set up both my camps there and generate so much that I can trade it all away more efficiently than to gain those resources myself. This dream of becoming the lord of lumber wouldn't be possible with a rigid setup, so I like the random setup for that reason. I also think that the random configuration of tiles and tokens being performed before the players make a choice almost negates many of the inherent imbalances in the random system. However, I will say that if the player chooses to use the random number token system rather than the alphabetical system (there are letters on the back of the token to indicate where they go on the board), then it could lead to the first player who places their settlement having way too much of an advantage. For example, if the first player can put down their settlement adjacent to two common resources, or even three, then you could argue that they have an insanely good chance at winning the game right from the get-go. ​

These are the resource cards you gain if the dice rolled equal the numbered token on top of the corresponding terrain tile.

Is the first time setup the best way to play the game?
All the arguments for a very balanced game will lead you to the answer of yes. Still, as I mentioned in the last paragraph, the fact that a player gets a choice after the setup can negate many of the balancing issues through their decision making. It's not like in the Civilization games, where the world is randomly generated, but where you end up is almost entirely random; in Catan, you have a choice. However, just because it is a powerful choice doesn't mean it needs to be in the game; there are plenty of other significant choices in every turn and direction of Catan's gameplay. It is very interactive, very tight in resource management early on, and even late in the game when you consider the robber, especially in a four-player game. So maybe player's don't need a choice in where they start; perhaps just a random dealing of colours regarding the player pieces at the beginning could spawn enough variety every playthrough.

Should you just skip the first time ruleset?
This question, to be honest, was the catalyst for this blog post. I saw a post on one of the board game Facebook groups a few weeks ago, mentioning that they always ignore rules that tell you to strip the game back for your first game. They say that they want to experience everything the game has to offer from the first playthrough. Honestly, if you have a good enough understanding of the mechanics, either through thoroughly reading the rulebook or watching a how-to-play video, then I can see the value in this idea. It would be odd in many other circumstances to take a "lesser" product when consuming it for the first time, so why should it be the same with board games? To answer that question straight away, these mechanics stripped away are often regarded as more complex or troublesome concerning a more casual audience, which the designers would have discovered during playtesting. As I mentioned at the start of the post, this practice is often used to protect players, shield them from being overwhelmed, and having a terrible experience. The first time experience with a lot of board games is everything, especially with a group that only meets up once a week or so, so I completely understand the idea of taking a few things out and promising them in the future once the player understands the game more than just throwing everything at the wall straight away and hoping people don't get overwhelmed. However, I will reiterate that it ultimately makes sense to ignore these instructions if you feel like you understand the game well enough because what's the point in removing parts of the game if all it will do is enhance the experience for you? 

Conclusion
Overall, I think it's down to looking at games on a game-by-game basis. Going back to Marvel Villainous, I was not too fond of the fact that the rulebook told me to not include events straight away for a couple of reasons. One, it is the main differentiator between its counterpart, Disney Villainous. Two, the game is so easy to understand. It has such little complexity in terms of communal mechanisms (the sophistication of the mechanisms and fun for me come in the deck and hand management unique to each deck). It felt odd to remove a mechanism that adds a bit of flavour to the communal game. 

However, with Catan, I think the first time setup was a great way to add training wheels to the experience without taking too much away from the gameplay. The promise of randomized terrain and numbered tokens makes me want to come back for more, almost as much as Gloomhaven does when I just finish a scenario, and I can't wait to turn the page. 

Thank you for reading; I hope you enjoyed my little post about first-time rulesets. If you want to keep up-to-date with blog posts, I have a mailing list that sends out a blast every six weeks with all new blog posts listed on it. On top of that, it is all the primary way I announce new projects that I am working on regarding my publishing company, Crab Studios. You can sign up for it here or click on the mailing list page on the sidebar. Thanks again, and I'll see you in the next post. ​