Board Game Arena

Many Mountain Goats games come down to whomever is luckier with their dice rolls (and in 2-player games, an advantage to whomever goes 2nd). My latest idea, which can probably only be implemented online and not for the physical board game, is to have each player play using the same dice rolls and to move their goats simultaneously. Only after you lock in your move can you see what the other players decided to do. If multiple players get to the top of a mountain at the same time, they would all get the reward but then bump each other to the bottom. If multiple players complete the condition for the same bonus at the same time, they could receive the average reward from the bonuses they normally would've received. If there is a scarcity of numbers available at the top of a mountain, the remaining rewards could be divided fairly among the goats that hit the top at the same time. Scoring based on fractional points would be necessary, but it would increase the skill/luck ratio and reduce the aggravation for players who play well but just get unlucky rolls.

If more than 1 die rolls a 1, the excess dice could automatically be rerolled until they are not 1 to make the turns more productive.

In the Big Mountain expansion, multiple goats would be allowed to move to the same space on big mountain at the same time and share the same average reward.

Fair observation! It is true that there is a noticeable advantage in going 2nd. However, I do see a few issues with these suggestions. (I will also be speaking from a 2-player perspective since that is the mode I know best.)

1. Developers must adhere to the original/official rules of the game, which are approved by the designers and publishers.

2. Changing said rules would ruin the variation of the game, which is what makes it so replayable. Say for the entire match, you get dice that can only be played optimally in 1 or 2 ways. Both players would be neck and neck, ending in a tie. Perhaps that was a bit extreme, but even if you get dice that have multiple possible options, over time, players would fall into 2 groups: the safe group and the risky group.

The safe group --- which I think would be the overwhelming majority --- would always be thinking about what the other player is most likely to play out of these choices and do the same, and the risky group may deviate from this assumption. In the current implementation, there are multiple ways to play it safe or to shoot your shot, but there are also many opportunities to back out of your previous plan or pivot. When players are given the same dice, risky players must fully commit. Shall they back out while they are already at the top of a mountain, safe players have the clear upperhand in that they can prepare moves based on the positions of their opponent's goats, making it difficult for that player to recover. If both play it safe, their goats would be waiting just below the summit of each mountain, creating another stalemate scenario. It would, quite frankly, make the game incredibly boring.

3. There is some luck involved in nearly every board game --- with a few exceptions like chess, for example --- though some rely more on luck than others. I believe this is the intention of the Mountain Goats designer since it allows for players to catch up if they fall behind early on. As stated in my 2nd point, players must learn to develop their own styles of offense and defense and adapt based on the rolls of the dice. You could even argue the dice are like an extra opponent, either aiding in your conquests or punishing you severely !

4. This proposal would actually reduce the skill involved. Over the course of many matches, players get both lucky and unlucky streaks. A better player does not always beat a worse player, that much is true, but their Elo will increase steadily in successive matches. By removing the unpredictability of what you roll versus what your opponent rolls, a player has no burden to make difficult decisions, and thus, it becomes a waiting game. Separation between skill levels would significantly decrease, and the same goes for the upper limit of performance.

I am intrigued to see what you think!