Why do people play this game without draft?

[dessp7]

TRM is all about luck
with no draft, more luck involved.
I would prefer to have draft on initial hand 10 cards too, to reduce a luck more.

[pheasantSI]

Interesting. Drafting really is what put me off playing TM in person - it really added to the game length (which was already getting hefty with any non prelude expansions) and the game started outstaying its welcome on the table (for me). It also meant I had to consider hate drafting - which isn't interesting to me, in a game that is not really designed to be drafted. My experience also was that some strategies became much more powerful (to the point of tedium) the worst offender being Jovian tags. Also, it became really hard to find things like science tags. Maybe it was just my group.

And sure, it's probably correct that drafting raises the skill ceiling, but it also means that things like seating position become important (am I sat next to a hate drafter or am I sat next to someone who drafts for themselves generally) - and also, it ruins the way that when you're given four cards, you might pick two that go with each other from those four, which for me is more fun for me than picking it all based on what the best card of the four (then three, then two etc.) is.

So for me, I prefer without draft because I want the game to be fast and fun and I don't mind if there's more luck involved. But, in addition to that I feel like draft really unbalances the game in a way that is also unfun and not very interesting.

[Uowca1]

It's just my gut feeling, but I don't think that draft reduces randomness as much as people give it credit for (it does in general yes, but people claim this change is much more significant than I think it is). What it does to a pretty large degree is increase skill expression, because weaker players are more likely to pass up cards they shouldn't. This gives experienced players an extra edge so in result they will win even more consistently vs weaker player, but it does it mostly because of an extra layer added to the game, not by making the game not random.

[FrankJones]

It's just my gut feeling, but I don't think that draft reduces randomness as much as people give it credit for (it does in general yes, but people claim this change is much more significant than I think it is). What it does to a pretty large degree is increase skill expression, because weaker players are more likely to pass up cards they shouldn't. This gives experienced players an extra edge so in result they will win even more consistently vs weaker player, but it does it mostly because of an extra layer added to the game, not by making the game not random.

In the long run, perhaps not. But in the short run within one individual game? I've only played a few games without drafting, but in several of them, one player just was dealt 4 duds each time. It was a miserable experience for that player.

[Curse Words]

Interesting. Drafting really is what put me off playing TM in person - it really added to the game length (which was already getting hefty with any non prelude expansions) and the game started outstaying its welcome on the table (for me). It also meant I had to consider hate drafting - which isn't interesting to me, in a game that is not really designed to be drafted. My experience also was that some strategies became much more powerful (to the point of tedium) the worst offender being Jovian tags. Also, it became really hard to find things like science tags. Maybe it was just my group.

And sure, it's probably correct that drafting raises the skill ceiling, but it also means that things like seating position become important (am I sat next to a hate drafter or am I sat next to someone who drafts for themselves generally) - and also, it ruins the way that when you're given four cards, you might pick two that go with each other from those four, which for me is more fun for me than picking it all based on what the best card of the four (then three, then two etc.) is.

So for me, I prefer without draft because I want the game to be fast and fun and I don't mind if there's more luck involved. But, in addition to that I feel like draft really unbalances the game in a way that is also unfun and not very interesting.

This is my personal opinion but I am fairly sure the game is designed to be drafting. Hate drafting isn't really a thing if you ask me: if you get dealt 4 cards, 1 card you really need and 1 card your opponent really needs + 2 other random cards, then what you need to calculate is which card will gain you the stronger edge. If your opponent is obviously going for a Jovian strategy then obviously I wouldn't pass on any jovian multipliers. I'm not sure if you call this "hate drafting" but I simply believe that this is the right play. But then say if the 1 card I really need is something like AGT, then the choice becomes harder. That's why I think drafting adds to the game and should be an option that is switched on for all games. Choices like this is what makes the game interesting, and is also why when you finish the game and discuss it with your opponent you can have "oh perhaps I shouldn't have passed you that card" moments.

Drafting certainly makes it easier to find science tags. You get to see 7 cards in total (in a 2 player game, or even 9 cards in a 3 player game) compared to the 4 cards if you don't draft. So I don't see how drafting actually makes finding science tags harder.

Finally, I don't see why you think drafting unbalances the game, I'm not sure if one player getting dealt all the jovians they need without needing to draft is really a balanced game. For example, they are already going on a jovian strategy, and in mid game they get dealt 2 jovians multipliers out of the 4 cards. In a draft game, they would only be able to keep 1, but without draft, they can simply keep 2 and I wouldn't know that they have kept 2 jovian multipliers. Say there is draft, and I see that they passed me one jovian multiplier, then I can reasonably deduce that what they kept for themselves is likely a stronger card e.g. another jovian multiplier.

[FrankJones]

Basically just echoing what Curse_words said:

I like the element of partial knowledge draft provides. We know some of the cards likely to be in our opponents' hands, and we also know each player likely buys one secret card each draft. That partial knowledge requires us to examine our opponent's likely plays and try to figure out counter strategies while also keeping us partly in the dark because of that first drafted card.

I like this mechanic, for the same reasons I like the pass and keep aspect of 7 Wonders and Blood Rage.

[pheasantSI]

When my IRL group switched to drafting I witnessed in real time one of my then favourite board games become much lengthier and *significantly* less fun. I loved improvising with what I had without drafting - and the relationships between the cards I was offered. And I loathe having to look to the player next to me and having to factor in what they need or want and then having to factor that in if I want to play competitively.

I've not been able to find a useful quote from the designer (despite some effort!) but I'm pretty certain it was not designed to be drafted, the designers don't draft it when they play it and the reason it's in the rulebook is that playtesters wanted to draft and so it ended up as a variant.

[FrankJones]

I've not been able to find a useful quote from the designer (despite some effort!) but I'm pretty certain it was not designed to be drafted, the designers don't draft it when they play it and the reason it's in the rulebook is that playtesters wanted to draft and so it ended up as a variant.

Sometimes the designers are not all that good at their own games. Is there any game for which the designer is better than the top 5 or ten players in the world at that same game?

[Ingoschi]

Sometimes the designers are not all that good at their own games. Is there any game for which the designer is better than the top 5 or ten players in the world at that same game?

Why should a designer adapt the rules to be best for the top players? I assume the goal is to create a game that you like yourself and possibly many others, so it sells well.

[FrankJones]

Sometimes the designers are not all that good at their own games. Is there any game for which the designer is better than the top 5 or ten players in the world at that same game?

Why should a designer adapt the rules to be best for the top players? I assume the goal is to create a game that you like yourself and possibly many others, so it sells well.

Agreed. I didn't phrase my post well. What I was trying to say is, if the TFM game designers say they prefer drafting because that makes it more fun and accessible to a larger audience, that is understandable. But if they say they prefer non-draft because that makes for a more skillful game, I would disagree and say that they are not recognizing the effect draft has on the skill needed to play at a high level.

My apologies for a vague and poorly worded post.