When one explores the notion of learning we invariably look for what motivates our learners to achieve. Traditionally, higher education learning institutions have operated as gatekeepers of knowledge and qualifications without which students were unlikely to receive the rewards they sought (specialist employment, access to higher degrees and eligibility to professional organisations). Compulsory schooling has also adopted a similar approach with most of its students captive to the system until age 16, or older if they do not have employment. In the final years of school the need to either find acceptable employment, or gain university entrance is a strong external motivator.
However, the knowledge economy has begun to alter this monopoly with the rapidly growing, readily available authoritative knowledge “online”. Information that was once only available in textbooks, conferences and journals is now making its way onto the World Wide Web. Students are now commonly regarded as consumers and come to learning institutions with expectations of a quality learning experience. If they (or in the case of schools, their parents) experience anything less than what they want, there are other institutions that are willing and able to accept them.
Up until recently, the concept of external motivators has worked well enough for schools and universities who use the lure of certification to ensure that most of their students apply themselves and attain the institutions’ requirements for a qualification. But what about the intrinsic motivational factors that can be found in some students? Is it possible that these could be more powerful drivers for student performance?
We know from much of the educational research that meaningful real-world learning provides high levels of intrinsic motivation (McCombs & Marzano, 1990; McCombs & Whisler, 1989; Deci and Ryan, 1991; Mills, 1991; Mills, Pransky & Sedgeman, 1994; Paris, Newman, & Jacobs 1985). We also know that intrinsic motivation enhances inquiry and can lead to high levels of learning engagement (Salmon, 2002). So how do we develop the kinds of intrinsic motivation that will result in high levels of performance, given the decreasing effect the more traditional incentives are having on our learners?
In 1969 McMaster University in Canada introduced Problem-Based Learning (PBL) into its medical school in an effort to provide a multi-discipline approach to medical education and to promote problem solving in its graduates (Barrows & Tamblyn, 1980). The PBL approach sought to embed small groups of students in the role of a professional and present them with a messy, ill-structured, real-world problem, based within the context of the profession, to solve. Students are then guided by cognitive coaches through the problem solving process and develop high levels of generic skills and attributes, along with the content specific knowledge and skills they require. PBL practitioners often claim that their learners are more motivated and independent in their learning. Most often the problem scenarios in PBL classes, while based on real cases, are contrived and somewhat hypothetical.
It would appear from some of the literature that intrinsic motivation and learning engagement are linked. Kearsley, and Shneiderman (1998) propose that by asking students to interact with a complex real-world problem, create a solution and then donate that solutgetting married on halloween and to be another corpse coupleion back into the real world, learners in Information Communication Technology learning environments become more engaged. This proposition is similar to the PBL model except that the problem solution is actually donated to the real world for feedback and review. Could this approach provide high levels of learning engagement in learning environments other than ICTs?
In most cases assessment is used to measure students’ learning (summative) and/or to provide useful feedback to the student on their progress throughout the course of study (formative). Assessment design is most often developed as an external measure and can be seen as an add-on to the course materials supplied. We know that with many courses assessment is a powerful extrinsic motivator—most students want to perform well and not fail. Kearsley, and Shneiderman (1998) demonstrated that donating solutions to the real world increases students’ intrinsic motivation, so what would happen if that became part of the assessment? The assessment would be both authentic and integrated with the learning tasks.
Currently, there has been little in the way or research published that seeks to evaluate the effectiadult halloween costumesveness of combining PBL, engagement theory and integrated and authentic assessment. Given that individually they all appear to contribute to the level of intrinsic student motivation, what would be the result of measuring the effect of having all of these approaches combined into a single learning design?
References
Barrows, H. & Tamblyn, R., 1980. Problem-based learning: an approach to medical education. Medical Education. Volume 1. New York: Springer Publishing Company.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M.(1991). A motivational approach to self: Integration in personality. In R. Dienstbier (Ed.). Nebraska symposium on motivation: Vol. 38. Perspectives on motivation (pp. 237-288). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Kearsley, G., & Shneiderman, B. (1998). Engagement theory: a framework for technology-based teaching and learning. Educational Technology, 38(5), 20-23.
McCombs, B. L., & Marzano, R. J. (1990). Putting the self in self-regulated learning: The self as agent in integrating skill and will. Educational Psychologist, 25(6), 51-69.
McCombs, B. L., & Whisler, J. S. (1989). The role of affective variableshalloween carnival night united states presidents get together in autonomous learning. Educational Psychologist, 24(3), 277-306.
Mills, R. C. (1991). A new understanding of self: The role of affect, state of mind, self-understanding, and intrinsic motivation. Journal of Experimental Education, 60(1), 67-81.
Mills, R. C., Pransky, G., & Sedgeman, J. A. (1994). POM: The basis of health realization: The founder monograph. LaConner, WA: Psychology of Mind Training Institute, Inc.
Paris, S. G., Newman, R. S., & Jacobs, J. E. (1985). Social contexts and the function of children's remembering. In M. Pressley & C. J. Brainerd (Eds.). Cognitive learning and memory in children (pp. 81-115). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Salmon, G. (2002). Send three and fourpence, we're going to a dance!. Net*working 2002. [http://www.atimod.com/research/presentations2002.shtml, accessed 23 May 2005]
2009年4月19日星期日
Success Stories in Injury and Violence Prevention
David Hemenway is Professor of Health Policy at the Harvard
School of Public Health, Director of the Harvard Injury Control
Research Center, and Director of the Harvard Youth Violence Prevention
Center. His previous books include Private Guns, Public Health. Hemenway is also the author of While We Were Sleeping: Success Stories in Injury and Violence Prevention, which was published by UC Press in March 2009. In his blog entry below, Hemenway discusses some success stories he mentioned during a visiting lecture.
By: David Hemenway
Everything is about economics?
Last week I gave a lecture about “While We Were Sleeping” at Saint Michael’s, a small getting married on halloween and to be another corpse coupleliberal arts college in Vermont. The talk was to a full house of economics faculty and students, a number of whom who were being inducted into the Omicron Delta Epsilon honor society. There was also a dinner with students, faculty, the president and other college administrators. Everyone was so welcoming, and I was extremely impressed by the caliber of the students, and how much they liked their college experience.
Because the audience was primarily economics majors, I tried to make my talk relevant to their studies. What does a talk about advocates and activists who have helped make the world safer—by helping to reduce motor vehicle deaths, burn injuries, violence, suicide, industrial accidents, etc—havehalloween carnival night united states presidents get together to do with what the students were studying?
Fortunately I am an economist, so I made sure that one of the heroes I talked about was a labor economist—John B. Andrews—who successfully promoted taxation rather than prohibition as a way to reduce the use of white phosphorous, which was causing an horrific workplace poisoning known as “phossy jaw.” One historian has written that Andrews “orchestrated the most significant legislative success achieved by advocates of workers’ health in the early twentieth century.”
I also talked about some possible lessons for economists. Some of the successes illustrated the power of the market. For example, improved ski boots and bindings (something these Vermont students had an interest in) dramatically reduced lower leg injuries between 1960 and 1980. Sometimes, however, the market cannot be relied on, when, for example there is poor consumer information or large the legend of jack o lantern and jack o lantern halloween costumeexternalities. The U.S. government had to require that automotive manufacturers install collapsible steering columns in cars in the 1960s, and that tobacco manufacturers produce cigarettes that were fire-safe in the 2000s. Vermont was the second state to pass such a cigarette law.
Often, however, the issue is not more or less government, but smarter government. For example, when the government buys or builds mass transit, roads or bridges, they can make them more or less safe for workers and for travelers. The Washington D.C. metro, for example, was specifically –and successfully--designed to deter crime and violence.
Finally, I talked about the “law of unintended consequences.” While economists often emphasis the bad unintended consequences of attempts to improve on the market, the unintended consequences of many of the successes in “While We Were Sleeping” were beneficial. For example, the passage of motorcycle helmet laws not only reduces motor cycle injury, but almost invariably reduces motorcycle theft. I had the students think about and explain why this would be the case.
One of the nicer aspects of writing this book has been the opportunity of making presentations in various locations and to various audiences. I did not even know Saint Mike’s existed before my talk there, but it seems like a hidden gem.
Thread: Colosseum: My First Session Report
Colosseum: My First Session Report
With four players around the board, and three of those new to the game, we were going to be in for an interesting evening. All of us are avid gamers however, so picking up on the rules wasn’t going to take very long. The game setup and rules were easy to follow, and as Days of Wonder so keenly does often, everything pertinent was on a double-sided reference card so there was no room for error. I was one of the new players, taking the 3rd position; referencing clockwise from the emperor’s start position.
First, I feel the need to talk a little about the game objectives. In order to win, you must produce the largest single hit of all time in your colosseum. The more building upgrades, the more guests you have, and the more shows you’ve aired in the past, all effect how much better you’ll do at your spectacular event. Everything will hinge on this one sale though, so you’ll have to decide on when the best time is to have your spectacular production and how to carve your resources up to get that production to be as big as possible. You only have 5 rounds to make it all happen, but you are given a break; you are given two small productions numbers to start off with.
The game began and I looked down to see what fate has given me to work with. My two production events both required similar resources (Musicians, Comedians, and Decorations, with a little scenery). I then looked at my resources (Musicians, Comedians, and 1 Decoration). I felt that I had the luck of the draw on my side. I glanced around the table to see what my competition would be like. Silent grumbling was on all three sides as my three opponents tried to figure out how they were going to tackle their mismatched events and resources. Apparently I was the only one who had this advantage…if it really was an advantage at all.
Onwards into Round 1 we went, the Buying Phase. Each player is allowed to buy one and only one item from the list, unless you have an item to overrule this rule. (I noted that it was odd for Days of Wonder to write it like that: ‘one and only one’. This was important and I had to look out for what this was going to mean in the future.) Players 1 and 2 bought some season tickets right away, giving their future events +5. I decided on a different tactic and instead bought the emperor’s ruge, allowing me to role 2 dice during the ‘move guests and produce’ phase whereas everyone else would be only rolling 1 die. Player 4 also bought season tickets and we then moved into the Auctions Phase.
I felt that the Auction Phase was the least balanced part of the game, and you readers will see that in the lack of written content I have for that phase. One of two things seemed to always happen; either the resources being auctioned sold for the lowest possible bid of 8 gold because the other players saw another auction on the table that they liked better, or if the resources being auctioned had a significant enough value to one person, then the other players would jack up the price up as high as they could, being only about 15-17 gold since the ‘buying’ phase was just before.
After came the Trading Phase where each player then had the chance to undo any damage done in the Auction Phase and obtain the resources they wanted, if the other trading party was willing, being another good reason for not wasting money on the Auction Phase unless you were in competition for something). By the end of this phase, all players ended up with something they needed this round to help in their first production.
Then the big round came; ‘Moving Guests and Production of an Event’. Everyone thought it best to produce an event this round since it was the only way, other than trading, to obtain gold for future purchases. Also, by not producing an event, there would most likely be a very high ‘catch-up’ hurdle to overcome. Player 1 ended up in first place with Player 2 just behind, myself just behind player 2 and player 4 just behind me. Not bad for a first round.
It was then time for the Wrap-up Phase. Every player had to lose a resource from their production and bonuses were handed out. Player 1 received a +3 podium tile for having the most spectacular event that round, and player 4 was allowed to take any one resource from the first place player for being in last place. I’ll say it again; the last place player was given a bonus for doing the worst! I saw advantage right there; ANY resource that the first place player has. Wow, that was better than trying to bid for resources and way better than trying to trade for them. It was just ‘walk in and take’; the only catch would be to stay just a smidge behind the third place player, lest I fall too far back in the running. I decided I would use that game mechanic to help collect the ‘hard to get’ resources for the end game, especially since it should be easier to get a last place bonus when everyone else was struggling for the first place bonus.
That ended Round 1; only four rounds to go.
Round 2 seemed to be the ‘prepare for Round 3’ round. Everyone expanded the colosseum in order to host a larger event in the next round. When it came time to auction, no one wanted to spend more than 8 gold since we were all saving up for a medium production. Not much trading happened either since we picked what we wanted from the auction. Everyone produced the same event as the first round again in order to put some more cash in there pocket, however while the other players moved a guest into there colosseum for more gold and points, I move 2 guests (thanks to the emperor’s ruge) to 4 squares before my colosseum. I gambled that no one would want to move those guests into my colosseum for me and was hoping that they would sit there until I was ready to make my spectacular event. Also, but more importantly, but not placing a guest into my colosseum, the other players all pulled ahead of me in points, placing me in last, enabling me to take my pick of player 2’s resources.
Round 3 was a round for upping the stakes. Player 1 and 2 bought medium events that would grant them an addition 10 – 15 more gold when produced. I counted my gold and decided that rather than buying an event for 20 - 25 gold like the others, only to make 10 – 15 more per round, I would instead make use of the other event that was given to me at the beginning of the game. The Auction Phase came and a ‘buildx2’ tile came up that I just had to have. Everyone else saw my desire and jacked up the price, but as I mentioned above, no one could outbid my 17 gold because they all bought items in the Build Phase. The Prodthe legend of jack o lantern and jack o lantern halloween costumeuce Phase produce came and all the other players produced their best event, placing them a good 20 gold higher than my production event of 23 gold. I was falling behind; maybe this last place thing was not a good item after all. However, I took the most of the situation and obtained a key resource (a torch) from player 1 that I knew I would need for Round 5.
Round 4 now came and the tension over the board grew. Everyone was preparing for Round 5 and the ONE sale was coming. Since everyone was trying to make their sale on Round 5, I considered making my sale on Round 4. The guests would bget your baby dressed up for the coming halloweene running all over the place and I didn’t want my 2 guests that were four squares away from my colosseum to disappear. In the end I turned the idea down though, instead using the round to build up my bonus points along with everyone else; other guests would come. Player 1 built his second colosseum expansion. Player 2 held onto his gold, saving it for a big purchase in the next round. Player 4 also ended up holding onto his gold. I cashed in my ‘buildx2’ chip to expand my colosseum and buy the third best spectacular event available. I liked that particular event because I only needed to collect 2 priests and 1 decoration. I had all the other resources already from my other productions. During the auction round, I collected one of the priests and during the trading round I obtained the decoration for 5 gold. The Produce Phase came and I chose to produce my other small event from the beginning of the game. This gave me +5 bonus for hosting multiple events and 21 gold to work with for the last round. I was hoping player 1 would be in the lead so that I could steal my last priest, however player 2 jumped into the lead and had nothing of value for me. I ended up taking a gladiator since they appeared to be the hot resource in the game. Everyone else wanted them so it would be good for trading for that priest. The round ended with me still at 23, the others were 35 – 40.
Round 5, time to throw in all your marbles. The Building Phase came and player 1 purchased production number 23 (out of 30), not bad considering he was first place in two of the rounds and had an additional +6 bonus for finishing first in two of the rounds. At that moment player 2 found out a fatal flaw happened in his game and player 4 found out the same about 10 seconds after. They both planned to buy a big event but didn’t have a large enough colosseum to host it. Now I knew why Days of Wonder put that rule in the reference card ‘one and only one’ item can be built. Without the ability to squeeze in an extra build (like with the ‘buildx2’ tile), they were finished. The best hope they had now was to build season tickets and move guests to try maximizing their current productions. Since both player 1 and myself already owned our large production number, we also purchased season tickets to increase our production value.
It seemed like it was between player 1 and myself. We each had large events and we each had a substantial amount of bonuses saved up. He had 2 podiums (+6), a guest (+3) and a star on horses (+4) along with his season tickets (+10). I had two star bonuses, the musician and the comedian (+8), two guests that thankfully no one moved throughout the game (+10) and season tickets (+10). The game was in my favor since I had a higher production number than he. The Auction Phase came and no priest was available for me to bid on. I was becoming worried. The Trading Phase came and the only player who had a priest, player 1, was sure not going to trade it to me. I was really worried now. Then came the Produce Phase. Time was up and I was going to have to take a 5-point penalty for missing one resource to my show. It wasn’t as bad as I had feared though. Player 1 was missing two resources to his production and placed him farther behind than he would have liked.
The final Turnout
Player 1 put everything he had to his production, but his two missing resources gave him a 10-point penalty, resulting in a final score of only 64.
Player 2, still saddened by his earlier mistake, counted out his points on his medium production, and to everybody’s surprise, ended up with a score of 65.
My turn to count and I felt confident now with my primary competition being lower in score than another. I ended off with a score of 78.
Player 4 was hoping for a similar miracle to what player 2 had but just didn’t have his ducks in a row. He ended off with a score of 48.
Overall, it was an interesting game. I most certainly can’t argue my win to 100% strategy. There was a lot of chance involved with what came up at the auction and what the other players were willing to trade for as well as where the guests ended up at the time of a production. In addition, if player 2 and 4 had a ‘buildx2’ somewhere along the line, no doubt there scores would have been significantly higher. Some luck was also given to me at the beginning of the game where my original two events required the same resources. That in turn allowed me to focus on less of the resource market.
I thought it was a good game, challenging, yet simplistic enough that no one will get bogged down in the rules. I think a more hidden auction would have stimulated the market more only showing one auction instead of five but then in turn players would need more money in which to bid with, so I guess Days of Wonder had thought about that in terms of game balance after all. I can, however, understand why people may not like this game. When you fall, you fall hard because everything hinges on one vital sale. If your ducks aren’t in a row, you don’t stand a chance. Also I felt this game dragged on a little too long for the end result, though this could simply be a first timers experience. If everybody knows the rules, the gaming experienceireland birthplace of halloween should go quicker.
Overall game time; including instruction: 2hrs 15min
Moral of the story: You don’t have to get caught up in the rat race in order to come out ahead.
Mike S
With four players around the board, and three of those new to the game, we were going to be in for an interesting evening. All of us are avid gamers however, so picking up on the rules wasn’t going to take very long. The game setup and rules were easy to follow, and as Days of Wonder so keenly does often, everything pertinent was on a double-sided reference card so there was no room for error. I was one of the new players, taking the 3rd position; referencing clockwise from the emperor’s start position.
First, I feel the need to talk a little about the game objectives. In order to win, you must produce the largest single hit of all time in your colosseum. The more building upgrades, the more guests you have, and the more shows you’ve aired in the past, all effect how much better you’ll do at your spectacular event. Everything will hinge on this one sale though, so you’ll have to decide on when the best time is to have your spectacular production and how to carve your resources up to get that production to be as big as possible. You only have 5 rounds to make it all happen, but you are given a break; you are given two small productions numbers to start off with.
The game began and I looked down to see what fate has given me to work with. My two production events both required similar resources (Musicians, Comedians, and Decorations, with a little scenery). I then looked at my resources (Musicians, Comedians, and 1 Decoration). I felt that I had the luck of the draw on my side. I glanced around the table to see what my competition would be like. Silent grumbling was on all three sides as my three opponents tried to figure out how they were going to tackle their mismatched events and resources. Apparently I was the only one who had this advantage…if it really was an advantage at all.
Onwards into Round 1 we went, the Buying Phase. Each player is allowed to buy one and only one item from the list, unless you have an item to overrule this rule. (I noted that it was odd for Days of Wonder to write it like that: ‘one and only one’. This was important and I had to look out for what this was going to mean in the future.) Players 1 and 2 bought some season tickets right away, giving their future events +5. I decided on a different tactic and instead bought the emperor’s ruge, allowing me to role 2 dice during the ‘move guests and produce’ phase whereas everyone else would be only rolling 1 die. Player 4 also bought season tickets and we then moved into the Auctions Phase.
I felt that the Auction Phase was the least balanced part of the game, and you readers will see that in the lack of written content I have for that phase. One of two things seemed to always happen; either the resources being auctioned sold for the lowest possible bid of 8 gold because the other players saw another auction on the table that they liked better, or if the resources being auctioned had a significant enough value to one person, then the other players would jack up the price up as high as they could, being only about 15-17 gold since the ‘buying’ phase was just before.
After came the Trading Phase where each player then had the chance to undo any damage done in the Auction Phase and obtain the resources they wanted, if the other trading party was willing, being another good reason for not wasting money on the Auction Phase unless you were in competition for something). By the end of this phase, all players ended up with something they needed this round to help in their first production.
Then the big round came; ‘Moving Guests and Production of an Event’. Everyone thought it best to produce an event this round since it was the only way, other than trading, to obtain gold for future purchases. Also, by not producing an event, there would most likely be a very high ‘catch-up’ hurdle to overcome. Player 1 ended up in first place with Player 2 just behind, myself just behind player 2 and player 4 just behind me. Not bad for a first round.
It was then time for the Wrap-up Phase. Every player had to lose a resource from their production and bonuses were handed out. Player 1 received a +3 podium tile for having the most spectacular event that round, and player 4 was allowed to take any one resource from the first place player for being in last place. I’ll say it again; the last place player was given a bonus for doing the worst! I saw advantage right there; ANY resource that the first place player has. Wow, that was better than trying to bid for resources and way better than trying to trade for them. It was just ‘walk in and take’; the only catch would be to stay just a smidge behind the third place player, lest I fall too far back in the running. I decided I would use that game mechanic to help collect the ‘hard to get’ resources for the end game, especially since it should be easier to get a last place bonus when everyone else was struggling for the first place bonus.
That ended Round 1; only four rounds to go.
Round 2 seemed to be the ‘prepare for Round 3’ round. Everyone expanded the colosseum in order to host a larger event in the next round. When it came time to auction, no one wanted to spend more than 8 gold since we were all saving up for a medium production. Not much trading happened either since we picked what we wanted from the auction. Everyone produced the same event as the first round again in order to put some more cash in there pocket, however while the other players moved a guest into there colosseum for more gold and points, I move 2 guests (thanks to the emperor’s ruge) to 4 squares before my colosseum. I gambled that no one would want to move those guests into my colosseum for me and was hoping that they would sit there until I was ready to make my spectacular event. Also, but more importantly, but not placing a guest into my colosseum, the other players all pulled ahead of me in points, placing me in last, enabling me to take my pick of player 2’s resources.
Round 3 was a round for upping the stakes. Player 1 and 2 bought medium events that would grant them an addition 10 – 15 more gold when produced. I counted my gold and decided that rather than buying an event for 20 - 25 gold like the others, only to make 10 – 15 more per round, I would instead make use of the other event that was given to me at the beginning of the game. The Auction Phase came and a ‘buildx2’ tile came up that I just had to have. Everyone else saw my desire and jacked up the price, but as I mentioned above, no one could outbid my 17 gold because they all bought items in the Build Phase. The Prodthe legend of jack o lantern and jack o lantern halloween costumeuce Phase produce came and all the other players produced their best event, placing them a good 20 gold higher than my production event of 23 gold. I was falling behind; maybe this last place thing was not a good item after all. However, I took the most of the situation and obtained a key resource (a torch) from player 1 that I knew I would need for Round 5.
Round 4 now came and the tension over the board grew. Everyone was preparing for Round 5 and the ONE sale was coming. Since everyone was trying to make their sale on Round 5, I considered making my sale on Round 4. The guests would bget your baby dressed up for the coming halloweene running all over the place and I didn’t want my 2 guests that were four squares away from my colosseum to disappear. In the end I turned the idea down though, instead using the round to build up my bonus points along with everyone else; other guests would come. Player 1 built his second colosseum expansion. Player 2 held onto his gold, saving it for a big purchase in the next round. Player 4 also ended up holding onto his gold. I cashed in my ‘buildx2’ chip to expand my colosseum and buy the third best spectacular event available. I liked that particular event because I only needed to collect 2 priests and 1 decoration. I had all the other resources already from my other productions. During the auction round, I collected one of the priests and during the trading round I obtained the decoration for 5 gold. The Produce Phase came and I chose to produce my other small event from the beginning of the game. This gave me +5 bonus for hosting multiple events and 21 gold to work with for the last round. I was hoping player 1 would be in the lead so that I could steal my last priest, however player 2 jumped into the lead and had nothing of value for me. I ended up taking a gladiator since they appeared to be the hot resource in the game. Everyone else wanted them so it would be good for trading for that priest. The round ended with me still at 23, the others were 35 – 40.
Round 5, time to throw in all your marbles. The Building Phase came and player 1 purchased production number 23 (out of 30), not bad considering he was first place in two of the rounds and had an additional +6 bonus for finishing first in two of the rounds. At that moment player 2 found out a fatal flaw happened in his game and player 4 found out the same about 10 seconds after. They both planned to buy a big event but didn’t have a large enough colosseum to host it. Now I knew why Days of Wonder put that rule in the reference card ‘one and only one’ item can be built. Without the ability to squeeze in an extra build (like with the ‘buildx2’ tile), they were finished. The best hope they had now was to build season tickets and move guests to try maximizing their current productions. Since both player 1 and myself already owned our large production number, we also purchased season tickets to increase our production value.
It seemed like it was between player 1 and myself. We each had large events and we each had a substantial amount of bonuses saved up. He had 2 podiums (+6), a guest (+3) and a star on horses (+4) along with his season tickets (+10). I had two star bonuses, the musician and the comedian (+8), two guests that thankfully no one moved throughout the game (+10) and season tickets (+10). The game was in my favor since I had a higher production number than he. The Auction Phase came and no priest was available for me to bid on. I was becoming worried. The Trading Phase came and the only player who had a priest, player 1, was sure not going to trade it to me. I was really worried now. Then came the Produce Phase. Time was up and I was going to have to take a 5-point penalty for missing one resource to my show. It wasn’t as bad as I had feared though. Player 1 was missing two resources to his production and placed him farther behind than he would have liked.
The final Turnout
Player 1 put everything he had to his production, but his two missing resources gave him a 10-point penalty, resulting in a final score of only 64.
Player 2, still saddened by his earlier mistake, counted out his points on his medium production, and to everybody’s surprise, ended up with a score of 65.
My turn to count and I felt confident now with my primary competition being lower in score than another. I ended off with a score of 78.
Player 4 was hoping for a similar miracle to what player 2 had but just didn’t have his ducks in a row. He ended off with a score of 48.
Overall, it was an interesting game. I most certainly can’t argue my win to 100% strategy. There was a lot of chance involved with what came up at the auction and what the other players were willing to trade for as well as where the guests ended up at the time of a production. In addition, if player 2 and 4 had a ‘buildx2’ somewhere along the line, no doubt there scores would have been significantly higher. Some luck was also given to me at the beginning of the game where my original two events required the same resources. That in turn allowed me to focus on less of the resource market.
I thought it was a good game, challenging, yet simplistic enough that no one will get bogged down in the rules. I think a more hidden auction would have stimulated the market more only showing one auction instead of five but then in turn players would need more money in which to bid with, so I guess Days of Wonder had thought about that in terms of game balance after all. I can, however, understand why people may not like this game. When you fall, you fall hard because everything hinges on one vital sale. If your ducks aren’t in a row, you don’t stand a chance. Also I felt this game dragged on a little too long for the end result, though this could simply be a first timers experience. If everybody knows the rules, the gaming experienceireland birthplace of halloween should go quicker.
Overall game time; including instruction: 2hrs 15min
Moral of the story: You don’t have to get caught up in the rat race in order to come out ahead.
Mike S
订阅：
评论 (Atom)