Root (and the Riverfolk Expansion) - Shut Up & Sit Down Review
Video Statistics and Information
Channel: Shut Up & Sit Down
Views: 808,800
Rating: 4.9205098 out of 5
Keywords: Shut Up and Sit Down, SUSD, SU&SD, Shut Up Show, Board Game Review, Review, Shut Up, Sit Down, Board Games, Board Gaming, Family Games, Boardgame, Board Game, Gaming, Tabletop, Fun Games, Quintin Smith, Matt Lees, Root, Root: Riverfolk Expansion
Id: Gup6lTgGdjI
Channel Id: undefined
Length: 22min 18sec (1338 seconds)
Published: Fri Sep 21 2018
Please note that this website is currently a work in progress! Lots of interesting data and statistics to come.
Haven't played the game yet, but what a great review.
This is what an actual critical game review should look like.
Please take note reviewers, more of this and less ten minute rule breakdowns with two minutes of 'I liked it'.
I've played the game about 15 times now and have spent more time thinking about this game than almost any other I've ever played, and pretty much every criticism Quinns has here is valid and has crossed my mind already.
The thing that really stuck with me though was the bit where he said he spent more time after games thinking about the next one then reflecting on the good experience that just ended. At first glance it might seem good to always have forward momentum and want to play another game, but it depends on why you want to play again.
For us, a lot of time we wanted to get another game going right away because the one we just finished felt weird or unsatisfying in some way. Somebody didn't stop the Vagabond when they needed to, the Lizards couldn't ever get the right outcast suit, the Otters priced their services wrongly, etc. So many times the immediate post-game conversation was, "Oh, well this was obviously a mistake and threw the whole game off. Let's try again and we'll fix that mistake" But in the next game something else goes wrong that we then vow to patch for the game after that.
I'm still down for playing Root but the more I play it the more it's evolving from what I initially saw as Better Vast to Better John Company. Vast is an attempt at a competitive asymmetric game that's just too bloated and overwrought for anybody but an extremely dedicated group. Root lowers the barrier of entry quite a bit, but increasingly it feels more like the sandbox of John Company than a game where I feel satisfied with its competitive trappings.
In John Company, players are rewarded simply for tinkering with the system. Cole created a fascinating machine and it's fun to see how things connect and what levers you can pull that have interesting and non-obvious effects. But in my 5 games of John Company I can't tell you who won any of them. Getting victory points is the least satisfying part of the game and I simply don't care, beyond narrative, who ends up in what abstract retirement home after their term in office.
The more I play Root the more the experience takes on this type of character. I don't obsess over people making the right move and I just have fun pulling levers. Maybe one game everybody is relatively close and then we all forget the Woodland Alliance has built up twelve supports and they race forward for a win. In another maybe the Vagabond just jumps out to a lead and wins by 15. Our group knows how to play now and turns go by fast. It's still fun switching around and playing different factions and Root as a 60 minute game can be a great time, but my obsession is definitely dying down at this point.
Though I disagree on some things, I praise SUSD for not blindly hopping on bandwagons and giving their actual opinion on the game.
I really like SU&SD reviews, and I agree with a lot of his points.
But....
The fact that the game provokes so much thoughts, and that he wants to come back to it so much shows the value it has. I fully understand why they cannot recommand it. It's hard to learn and hard to teach, and it's not an exciting game full of fun. It's a game that demand attention and dedication from its players. But it sticks to the mind. It sets out to tell a story, and it does that very well. Better than any other wargame I've played.
Root is a weird one, and his popularity is surprising to me, but at the moment, I really love it.
I think SU&SD are trying to address a larger problem in the hobby with their review style: BGG has made the community obsessed with ranking and comparing games. People want an objective ranking of the "best" games based on "facts". There's no room for taste or nuance in a ranking system but it doesn't have to be that way.
SU&SD are more like restaurant critics; it is entirely about the experience. It's possible for me to have a terrible experience at your favorite restaurant, and I think most people can easily understand that concept. If I review a restaurant, I'm writing to encourage or discourage you from sharing my experience. Sure, certain things in my review might be objective (the fish is flown in fresh every night) but that still has very little to do with how much you'll enjoy your experience. It might inform it, it might make it more likely, but you could still have a terrible time. Again, I think most people inherently understand this about a restaurant review.
With board games, many people in the community seem to insist on objective, quantified "facts" about a game that place it in a heirarchy. I believe you simply can't separate these things out and I think a lot of the community wants to quantify things that shouldn't be quantified.
Bravo to SU&SD for informing us on the experience of the game and not reducing their reviews to a score.
I'm a bit disappointed that Quinns is disappointed because I absolutely love this game, but I don't think he's wrong in any of his comments.
[edit: THE BEAVERS?!?!?!? HOW DARE YOU!!]
Both halves of this review speak to me. Iโve played once, so I feel I owe it more tries, but I left the first game thinking, I wish I hadnโt been attacked so hard to allow another faction to run rampant.
Next time...
(I also enjoyed the psycho/birds joke)
He articulated what Iโve been thinking.
The game is lovely and brimming with potential for intricately and precariously balanced war. And unless I make 3 clones of myself to evenly spread out my knowledge of the game to all players, Iโll never quite see that potential realized. And even if it is realized, it doesnโt quite conclude with a bang.
His comments about the Victory Point track really struck home. I wonder if VPs just isnโt the best way for this game to decide a winner? Not sure what the best option would be, but that does seem to be the moment where the asymmetry clashes together and sounds somewhat...wrong, whereas the rest of the game it clashes beautifully.
Wow, this thread. Quinns literally gushed over this game, said it didnโt have staying power, and then literally made a joke about giving it away but not being willing to part with it, and YET, people are obsessed with the parts where he said negative things.
All in all, I think this is a very strong review.