At higher levels is this game just about blocking opponent's meeples?

[frogstar_A]

I've played Carcasonne for years with friends, and we all spend about 80% of our time building our own stuff, and just occasionally try and block or sneak into an opponent's city if it gets big. We always thought Monastries were the best tile, as they usually net 7-9 points.

I have tried to play Carcasonne Arena league - and suddenly it feels like a whole different game!

Firstly, people don't really place any meeples for about the first 6-7 turns, they just wait for me to and then block in all my meeples.

Secondly, people seem to shun monastries (i guess because they can easily be blocked).

Is this game really just all about blocking at the higher levels of competition?

If so do I have to just either do the same, or go and play something else?! Carcasonne doesn't seem so fun when it's just an aggressive game of cutting off meeples

[CB Droege]

All games get a bit more aggressive when you get into tournaments, especially against strangers, and especially against high-ranked players. It's not about fun anymore it's about winning (which is totes valid, but it is a different playstyle. There are def moves that I'm willing to make against a stranger ion the internet in a tournament that I would never make against a member of my family at the table in our house)

BUT in Carcassone it can also be about player number. In a 2-player game, jerk-moves designed to attack your opponent, or nullify their plays are rewarded. If you can make sure that they either can't get points, or that the points they do get, they have to share with you, then you can eliminate their effort, or even make them work for you. But that doesn't work as well as soon as you add a third player, and the more players, the less advantage there is to playing screw-your-neighbor style Carcassonne, since it leaves you with nothing built, and anytime you nullify your opponent, you actually give a disadvantage to the other players, rather to the one you nullified.

This is why I'm not particularly fond of two-player Carcassonne. It's just not as well balanced for fun-factor.

[frogstar_A]

as soon as you add a third player, and the more players, the less advantage there is to playing screw-your-neighbor style Carcassonne, since it leaves you with nothing built, and anytime you nullify your opponent, you actually give a disadvantage to the other players, rather to the one you nullified.

This is why I'm not particularly fond of two-player Carcassonne. It's just not as well balanced for fun-factor.

Good point - i always play 3 player for fun, or 3-4 with family. Perhaps i will stick to that!

[Robo65]

I am playing since 2002 (on a now dead online platform), and mostly competitive. Our motto there was: Blocken, Klauen, Selber bauen (block, steal, build by yourself), which should represent the priority list of actions.

Of course it's not that easy. You'll lose if you waste your time with too much blocking attempts, especially if the opponent is wary. But if you let them build to their heart's content, you'll lose, too. To win, you need to find the right balance between destructive and constructive gameplay, and you need do adapt to the guiles of your opponent. And of course you need to do your math, because there are few things more important in Carcassonne than the count of remaining tiles and the probability of getting the right one.

Playing like this can be fun, too. I'll admit that it's a strenuous type of fun. And having a nice chat while you brutally disrupt the gameplay of your opponent is quite possible.

When there are more than 2 players, the game changes. You can't be as aggressive, that will make the others gang up against you. Competitive play with 3 or more players is like playing Diplomacy. Be a partner, build together, right until the moment when you change tack and steal the points.

Friendly play is something else. But where's the point in that? Do you want to win? If yes, being friendly on the board is only an option as a ruse. And if you don't want to win, why do you play? The fun of losing is quite overrated...

Just my 2ct...
Robo

[CB Droege]

Friendly play is something else. But where's the point in that? Do you want to win? If yes, being friendly on the board is only an option as a ruse. And if you don't want to win, why do you play? The fun of losing is quite overrated...

This is a bit reductionist. There is something to be said for playing a game in a less aggressive way, and having the same or more fun. It's a differnt way to play, and can be very important for playing when you playing with a new player or with a child, or with a lover you don't want to upset, or just because you are not feeling very aggressive that day.

Personally, I have more fun with less aggressive Carcassonne play, so when I play, I remain mostly non-aggressive unless I see that my opponent is going down the aggressive road, and I have to fight back. Perhaps I'm less likely to win when I never throw the first punch... but I have more fun that way, and that's totes valid.

[nairobiny]

You may want to try Marram, which shares some of the features of Carcassonne but has unique elements which both amplify and mitigate a blocking style of play.

[juss100]

This is a bit reductionist. There is something to be said for playing a game in a less aggressive way, and having the same or more fun. It's a differnt way to play, and can be very important for playing when you playing with a new player or with a child, or with a lover you don't want to upset, or just because you are not feeling very aggressive that day.

Personally, I have more fun with less aggressive Carcassonne play, so when I play, I remain mostly non-aggressive unless I see that my opponent is going down the aggressive road, and I have to fight back. Perhaps I'm less likely to win when I never throw the first punch... but I have more fun that way, and that's totes valid.

You should play a game how you want to play it, of course, but I find it somewhat odd that someone would complain that a two player game designed around the idea of friendly competition is aggressive. Can you imagine at Chess tournaments 'Director, I'd like to complain about poor sportsmanship, this man keeps trying to take my King, when I'm more into making pretty patterns with my pawns?' Or Magic the Gathering 'Can someone stop this woman attacking me when I'm perfectly happy building up my own menagerie of lands and creatures'

People need to stop describing gameplay as "aggressive' when all thatt means is that they are losing the game or not very good at the game. I'm not someone who is obsessive about winning games on a personal level, but that kinda is the point of games. To win them. So playimg them in a way that facilitates your winning is very much the point and very much correct play. If it bothers you that you have an opponent then why play a game?? Why not just build lego if you like building? Or do a jigsaw puzzle?

[nmego]

You may want to try Marram, which shares some of the features of Carcassonne but has unique elements which both amplify and mitigate a blocking style of play.

Seconding that one.

[CB Droege]

This is a bit reductionist. There is something to be said for playing a game in a less aggressive way, and having the same or more fun. It's a differnt way to play, and can be very important for playing when you playing with a new player or with a child, or with a lover you don't want to upset, or just because you are not feeling very aggressive that day.

Personally, I have more fun with less aggressive Carcassonne play, so when I play, I remain mostly non-aggressive unless I see that my opponent is going down the aggressive road, and I have to fight back. Perhaps I'm less likely to win when I never throw the first punch... but I have more fun that way, and that's totes valid.

You should play a game how you want to play it, of course, but I find it somewhat odd that someone would complain that a two player game designed around the idea of friendly competition is aggressive. Can you imagine at Chess tournaments 'Director, I'd like to complain about poor sportsmanship, this man keeps trying to take my King, when I'm more into making pretty patterns with my pawns?' Or Magic the Gathering 'Can someone stop this woman attacking me when I'm perfectly happy building up my own menagerie of lands and creatures'

People need to stop describing gameplay as "aggressive' when all thatt means is that they are losing the game or not very good at the game. I'm not someone who is obsessive about winning games on a personal level, but that kinda is the point of games. To win them. So playimg them in a way that facilitates your winning is very much the point and very much correct play. If it bothers you that you have an opponent then why play a game?? Why not just build lego if you like building? Or do a jigsaw puzzle?

I wasn't complaining. I was observing, but you are continuing with the assumption that playing is only about winning. In fact, you say it in your post, but that's not true. Some people play to play. And yes, you should always try to win, but many games have multiple different ways that you can try to win, different strategies you can employ, which are better for different situations, and some of them can def be called more aggressive than others. One way to win Carccassonne is to block and attack, but you could also just build better, bigger stuff, with a minimum of blocking.

Even the examples you gave: In MtG, you CAN win by just building a huge realm full of creatures and life-giving bonuses, and just defend yourself while you gain life and wear your opponent out. Does it work as often? Maybe not, but it's still a valid way to play the game. and I'm certain there are similar examples in Chess, but I admit I know almost nothing about chess at higher levels than just "I know the rules and can technically play a game" (Probably because I find the game too aggressive in general :O )

And to your "then why would you play?" question: Well, I usually don't play two-player Carcassonne because it usually ends up so aggressive, I play another game or I play with more players, where it gets less 'attacky'.

BUT, if I'm playing against just my partner who REALLY doesn't like having her farms stolen, and I know going in that she hates playing that way, then I will try to find another way to win, confident that she's not going to try to steal my farms either, and if I lose because I chose to try something else instead of taking the farm-stealing opportunity that surely would have won, well, that's okay, I learned more about the game, my partner had more fun, and maybe we'll play another round, which we might not have done if I had played in a way that upset her.

Yes we should always try to win. It's bad to throw games for any reason, but trying to win with a less aggressive strategy, or with a new tactic that I'm less sure about, is not the same as throwing the game, and it's totally okay.

Gaming is not always about winning at all costs, sometimes there is a balance to strike.

[frogstar_A]

You should play a game how you want to play it, of course, but I find it somewhat odd that someone would complain that a two player game designed around the idea of friendly competition is aggressive. Can you imagine at Chess tournaments 'Director, I'd like to complain about poor sportsmanship, this man keeps trying to take my King, when I'm more into making pretty patterns with my pawns?' Or Magic the Gathering 'Can someone stop this woman attacking me when I'm perfectly happy building up my own menagerie of lands and creatures'

What spoiled my enjoyment of the game is that once all my meeples are blocked in I can't really do anything - I just have to sit and watch my opponent play for the rest of the game. This is what happened to me, and why I ended up just conceded because it was boring.

There is no analogy in Chess, because there is nothing the opponent can do to stop me actually moving pieces on my turn.

The analogy in MtG would be a land destruction deck that just focuses on destroying all my lands so I can't play anything. In the rules, but not much fun to play against.

My takeaway from this is just to play 3-4 player games where blocking is less likely to be a good strategy - only huge castles etc end up being blocked, rather than a strategy to just literally block in every meeple. I certainly never had a problem with it until I started playing Arena 2 player games.

And for the record, if that's what the game is about then so be it - I'm not asking people to play differently or try less hard to win - it's just that, if that genuinely is how the games play out I'll just play something else. Maybe Chess or MtG