tl;dr
There has emerged, primarily in two player games, an early strategic move that breaks the game. The first player immediately takes 2 Lady’s Maids from the servants for hire, thereby preventing the other player from ever hiring a Lady’s Maid. Pairing that hire with any move that enhances male service capacity (York Family, Brushing Room, Butler’s Pantry, Servants’ Quarters) essentially ends the game unless there are very unusual circumstances. In conjunction with the ‘Friendly’ variant that prevents players from stealing servants, it is devastating.
I am deploying a fix that will be in the form of a single variant that adds one Lady’s Maid and one Valet to the servants for hire at all player counts. It will not be part of the default setup because it is not part of the rules for the physical game, and I do not want to confuse people test-driving Obsession. But it will be an option at setup. In the interim, I would ask people to refrain from the strategy or, at the very least, discuss the issue with your opponent(s) at the start of the game.
For more information as to why this issue has arisen only in BGA, read below.
Background
Most know that Obsession places a heavy emphasis on theme. The purpose of limiting servants is that good personal servants (Lady’s Maid and Valet) were not easy to find in the 1860s, particularly in rural Derbyshire. The family’s personal servants, which are not visible in the game, are nonetheless always there (automatically providing service each and every day), and extra personal servants were a luxury. Players begin with one extra personal servant of each gender, and the hiring of additional extra personal servants would be considered an extravagance. Of course, Victorians were extravagant, and would, as soon as it was affordable, increase the domestic staff all around (the hiring action as you advance in wealth in reputation during the game). Having two of each personal servant in a 2P game reflects this scarcity of servants; the ability to lure away servants from other families was indeed part of aristocratic life, thus the ‘recruit’ action on the backside of the Butler’s Pantry.
Now, over the 5 years that Obsession has been available before the BGA adaptation, I thought I had encountered every conceivable issue; for example, I incorporated several excellent user recommendations into the 2nd edition, such as changing how Objective Cards are managed, the rotation of the 1st player marker, and more. I have had less compelling recommendations to change the colours of meeples, the names of certain families, the shape of the box, everything!
But never was there a single complaint about the game breaking Lady’s Maid move above. This is because Obsession played in real life is inherently a courteous game, where people gather to practice bad accents, serve tea, and display Victorian manners, and any technique that so blatantly disregarded the spirit of the game would not be allowed to stand. So no friend gathering for an afternoon of Obsession ever deployed this as a strategy. It may have happened (to meet an objective), but then another player had the fallback move to recruit a servant to their estate, a move accompanied by profuse apologies and groans of impropriety.
With the advent of BGA, only ½ of Obsession is prominently on display: the mechanical game. The thematic game really only shines in person. It was a risk I took because I am proud of the mechanics and wanted players uninterested in the theme to be able try the game, but divorcing Obsession from Victorian sensibilities has resulted in people playing aggressively to win (understandable) and uncovered an issue that is unique to online play.
I am not faulting people who are currently using this technique—for heaven's sake, I even situationally recommended it in a video—but the use of this hiring strategy is contrary to the spirit of Obsession. If there's any question as to how strongly polite society governs gameplay, there is even a rule in the rulebook that says you are not allowed to refresh the market to remove a tile that would benefit an opponent.
Page 21, Glossary
Limitations: It would be thematically nonsensical to refresh the Builders’ Market to eliminate options for another player. This is discouraged! As a result, this SA should never be punitive. For example, refreshing the market cannot be done after a player’s turn as a way to remove improvements from play (for example, a player with only £200 refreshes the market to stop the next player, who has £1500, from buying a Sculpture Garden currently in the market).
Refreshing the market should not be done if the current player lacks the resources or the desire to make a purchase from the market; since there is a qualitative element to this rule (SA for £ is always an option and desire is abstract), players are asked to honor the spirit of the rule.
A fix is needed.
Therefore, the variant to be deployed will add 1 Lady’s Maid and 1 Valet to the normal setup servant count. This should solve the problem, and I am hopeful that tournament play will use this setting. If anyone were to pursue two hires to monopolize Lady’s Maids, it should be a crippling move for that player (if not easily countered by the other player); it would foreclose the chance to play the Private Study and functionally concede the first courtship.
I very much apologize for the issue, and I welcome any recommendations.
Thank you.
Dan Hallagan
Kayenta Games
There has emerged, primarily in two player games, an early strategic move that breaks the game. The first player immediately takes 2 Lady’s Maids from the servants for hire, thereby preventing the other player from ever hiring a Lady’s Maid. Pairing that hire with any move that enhances male service capacity (York Family, Brushing Room, Butler’s Pantry, Servants’ Quarters) essentially ends the game unless there are very unusual circumstances. In conjunction with the ‘Friendly’ variant that prevents players from stealing servants, it is devastating.
I am deploying a fix that will be in the form of a single variant that adds one Lady’s Maid and one Valet to the servants for hire at all player counts. It will not be part of the default setup because it is not part of the rules for the physical game, and I do not want to confuse people test-driving Obsession. But it will be an option at setup. In the interim, I would ask people to refrain from the strategy or, at the very least, discuss the issue with your opponent(s) at the start of the game.
For more information as to why this issue has arisen only in BGA, read below.
Background
Most know that Obsession places a heavy emphasis on theme. The purpose of limiting servants is that good personal servants (Lady’s Maid and Valet) were not easy to find in the 1860s, particularly in rural Derbyshire. The family’s personal servants, which are not visible in the game, are nonetheless always there (automatically providing service each and every day), and extra personal servants were a luxury. Players begin with one extra personal servant of each gender, and the hiring of additional extra personal servants would be considered an extravagance. Of course, Victorians were extravagant, and would, as soon as it was affordable, increase the domestic staff all around (the hiring action as you advance in wealth in reputation during the game). Having two of each personal servant in a 2P game reflects this scarcity of servants; the ability to lure away servants from other families was indeed part of aristocratic life, thus the ‘recruit’ action on the backside of the Butler’s Pantry.
Now, over the 5 years that Obsession has been available before the BGA adaptation, I thought I had encountered every conceivable issue; for example, I incorporated several excellent user recommendations into the 2nd edition, such as changing how Objective Cards are managed, the rotation of the 1st player marker, and more. I have had less compelling recommendations to change the colours of meeples, the names of certain families, the shape of the box, everything!
But never was there a single complaint about the game breaking Lady’s Maid move above. This is because Obsession played in real life is inherently a courteous game, where people gather to practice bad accents, serve tea, and display Victorian manners, and any technique that so blatantly disregarded the spirit of the game would not be allowed to stand. So no friend gathering for an afternoon of Obsession ever deployed this as a strategy. It may have happened (to meet an objective), but then another player had the fallback move to recruit a servant to their estate, a move accompanied by profuse apologies and groans of impropriety.
With the advent of BGA, only ½ of Obsession is prominently on display: the mechanical game. The thematic game really only shines in person. It was a risk I took because I am proud of the mechanics and wanted players uninterested in the theme to be able try the game, but divorcing Obsession from Victorian sensibilities has resulted in people playing aggressively to win (understandable) and uncovered an issue that is unique to online play.
I am not faulting people who are currently using this technique—for heaven's sake, I even situationally recommended it in a video—but the use of this hiring strategy is contrary to the spirit of Obsession. If there's any question as to how strongly polite society governs gameplay, there is even a rule in the rulebook that says you are not allowed to refresh the market to remove a tile that would benefit an opponent.
Page 21, Glossary
Limitations: It would be thematically nonsensical to refresh the Builders’ Market to eliminate options for another player. This is discouraged! As a result, this SA should never be punitive. For example, refreshing the market cannot be done after a player’s turn as a way to remove improvements from play (for example, a player with only £200 refreshes the market to stop the next player, who has £1500, from buying a Sculpture Garden currently in the market).
Refreshing the market should not be done if the current player lacks the resources or the desire to make a purchase from the market; since there is a qualitative element to this rule (SA for £ is always an option and desire is abstract), players are asked to honor the spirit of the rule.
A fix is needed.
Therefore, the variant to be deployed will add 1 Lady’s Maid and 1 Valet to the normal setup servant count. This should solve the problem, and I am hopeful that tournament play will use this setting. If anyone were to pursue two hires to monopolize Lady’s Maids, it should be a crippling move for that player (if not easily countered by the other player); it would foreclose the chance to play the Private Study and functionally concede the first courtship.
I very much apologize for the issue, and I welcome any recommendations.
Thank you.
Dan Hallagan
Kayenta Games
