Game title: The Quacks of Quedlinburg
Gaming system: Board Game
Category: medieval, fantasy, magic
Player type: 2 to 4 players
Restrictions: Ages 10+
Average game play time: 45 minutes +
Publisher: Schmidt Spiele (Original German Version), North Star Games (English Version)
Release Date: 2018
Cost: $54.99
Overview
The Quacks of Quedlinburg is a two to four player board game that was published in 2018. Originally published in German and then in English in the same year, the game is also known as “Die Quacksalber von Quedlinburg” or “Quacksalber” (Quack Doctors). This game won the Gamer’s Game of the Year in 2018 (“Kennerspiehl des Jahres” in German), which is considered the “Oscars of Games” (North Star Games, 2020). The premise of the game revolves around an annual potions festival in the town of Quedlinburg where the best potion makers and quack doctors come together to see who can create the best potion.
There are several different game aspects that allow for variations in game play each round. Here is the full game set-up:
The main game board shows the different nine-rounds of play. Players can move their game pieces around the board based on points gained each round from where you land in your potion. The Fortune Teller cards and dice also add some fun variation to the game. The player in first place at the beginning of each round can roll the dice for an added prize or advantage, such as additional points. A Fortune Teller card is also flipped each round with various guidelines to game play:
Each player gets their own potion board and black bag to hold their circular potion ingredient coins. The “flame” board game piece is your starting point in the middle of the potion. Different cards and potion ingredients can allow players to move their flame piece forward to a higher starting point throughout the game. The bottom-left of the potion board also shows the ingredient coins that you have in your black bag. Each round, players will blindly choose one ingredient coin at a time out of their black bag, matching the moves to the number on the ingredient coin. However, you can never exceed the sum of 7 from the white ingredient coins or your potion explodes. Players can choose to “stop” of their own accord or take the chance of their potion exploding. If you do explode your potion once, then you can flip your flask in the bottom-right of the potion board as a “get out of jail” move, return your last white ingredient coin and you’ll owe two red rubies as payment at the end of the round. After you’ve used your flask once each round if you then exceed the sum of 7 from your white ingredient coins, then your potion has permanently exploded and you only get to keep either the ingredient coins or the player move points for the round, instead of both where you landed. Therefore, this is a game of statistics and chance. The goal in order to win is to be the player with the most points at the end of the game.
Additionally, players can see cards representing the different potion ingredients, separated by colors as well as abilities/board piece amounts card-to-card. Players are able to purchase circular point-pieces based on the number of coins their potion lands on each round. You can be strategic and depending on your ranking in the game, buy different functioning ingredient coins where each different coin has various advantages including the number of spaces you can move on the board, gaining points if you choose a coin from your black bag of a certain color and more.
Game Experience
I typically don’t enjoy strategic board games compared to say, video games, but it was interesting to learn the intricacies of The Quacks of Quedlinburg. I played with my partner, so we had the minimum number of players with the two of us. Since this is his board game and he was familiar with the rules, he set-up the game for us and explained the game’s rules at the beginning of our game play, as well as throughout each round.
I did find it difficult to grasp the complicated game rules at first and found myself asking a lot of questions, like what certain coin ingredients actions were and the advantages of purchasing each different color of ingredient coin. It also took me a while to realize that I could “bail myself out of jail” if I exploded with the white coins adding up to more than seven in my potion each round. This resulted in me trying to acquire as many red rubies to bail myself out with my flask in as many game rounds as possible. Otherwise, after I was comfortable with the game rules several rounds in, I started to be more strategic, trying to buy ingredient coins that would allow for the most points or play advantages in preparation for future rounds. I found that this game really is a game of chance, with some minor strategic movements at play. Since you’re blindly pulling out coins from your black bag, attempting to avoid the dreaded white coins so that you don’t explode your potion when they add up to more than seven, you have to be very aware of what coins are in your black bag, as well as other player’s black bags. Therefore, this really requires a lot of memory skills to remember everyone’s coins that are in their black bag, especially as you add more to your black bag each round as you purchase more. Some statistics and math skills are also involved as you must deduce what coins have been used each round from the black bags.
Overall, I was surprised at how entertaining this game is. My partner and I are both very competitive, so it’s fun to play with each other and we sometimes make bets and offer up prizes to the winner...or punishments for the loser, like house chores. I do think that the game play would be more fun with additional players, so I’d be curious to try this game again, but with the maximum number of four players.
Scholarly Examination and Connections
One of the major discussions from this cycle’s readings was pointsification and whether that is truly a great motivator for players or not. In Sonia Fizek’s “Why Fun Matters: In Search of Emergent Playful Experiences” article, gamification is discussed as “bullshit” based solely on points as a motivating factor. Fizek went more in depth to state that “Emergent playfulness draws from the above understandings of emergence, and links them with the idea of
fun as a process originating from the more open design allowing for some level of improvisation on the part of the player.” (Fizek, 2014, p. 280). In The Quacks of Quedlinburg, although the main goal is to win by getting the most points compared to other players, what makes the game fun or playful is that each game round changes rules slightly. Each round you are using additional ingredient coins, changing your chances of exploding your potion and giving different players alternating advantages from round to round.
To expand, in the article “Exploring the Endgame of Gamification”, author Scott Nicholson wrote about how currently most forms of “gamification focus on offering points and rewards to motivate users.” This can be in the form of increasingly difficult levels, digital badges or titles in games to exhibit your game level or skill and more. Points are designed in games to help enforce specific types of behavior and as Nicholson outlined, most games rarely focus on punishments, but rather rewards (Nicholson, 2014, p. 289). And, although it’s true that I was motivated to win in The Quacks of Quedlinburg by getting the most points possible, it was interesting that the game revolved around the premise of punishment for miscalculations or bad luck in the form of your potion exploding. However, through increasing game play, you’re able to collect red rubies to buy your way out of an initial explosion. So, Nicholson would most likely consider The Quacks of Quedlinburg a rewards-based game with points and ingredient coins the main goals for winning. However, the long-term motivating part of the game for me was learning the game rules and getting to spend time playing my partner’s hobby with him.
This helped me think of player types from Gabriela T. Richard’s article, “Designing for the Audience: Past Practices and Inclusive Considerations”, which were divided into four different groups: Achiever, Socializer, Killer and Explorer (Richards, 2014). As discussed, player types can alter based on who you’re playing with, the environment and specific game that you’re playing. In The Quacks of Quedlinburg, I was most obviously a mix between an Achiever player type and a Socializer player type. As my main goal was to win (for bragging rights, too, of course) the game against my partner, I was primarily an Achiever in this game. However, although I’m not usually concerned with the Socializer player type in most games, I was focused on socializing with my partner in The Quacks of Quedlinburg and spending time with him. I can’t say that I’m usually focused on the Killer player type, as I’m not typically motivated in showing superiority to other players or harming characters in games. I am often an Explorer player type, and in this game’s format, I learned about the nuances of its intricate game rules. Although, I find most other games more applicable to the Explorer player type since I most often am playing more open-ended simulations compared to a structured board game.
However, through playing The Quacks of Quedlinburg, it really challenged me by having to learn the intricate and ever-changing rules each game round. Throughout this course, I have been playing increasingly difficult games to me as I’ve been challenging myself as a non-gamer and how I view gaming as fun and in education. In our second Resonant Games article “ Design Principles for Learning Games that Connect Hearts, Minds and the Everyday”, the idea of “hard fun” is discussed (Klopfer et al., 2018). This is referring to the idea that most people and game players enjoy challenges, but these must be matched to the individual’s skill level and background knowledge so as not to be impossible to succeed. With my ever-increasing game experiences, The Quacks of Quedlinburg was challenging, but I had just enough game mechanic background knowledge for this game to be fun.
The Quacks of Quedlinburg wouldn’t normally be used in a classroom setting, but it absolutely could with transferable skills such as memory, statistics, communication and challenging strategic plays. Overall, I highly recommend this game and I plan on playing again in the future.
References
Fizek, S. (2014). Why fun matters: in search of emergent playful experiences. In M. Fuchs, S. Fizek, P. Ruffino, & N. Schrape (Eds.), Rethinking gamification (pp. 273-287). Lüneburg: Meson press. Retrieved from https://via.hypothes.is/https://mediarep.org/bitstream/handle/doc/2959/Rethinking_Gamification_273-287_Fizek_Why_fun_matters.pdf?sequence=1
Klopfer, E., Haas, J., Osterweil, S., & Rosenheck, L. (2018). Resonant games: Design principles for learning games that connect hearts, minds, and the everyday. Retrieved from https://via.hypothes.is/http://remikalir.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Resonant2.pdf
Nicholson, S. (2014). Exploring the Endgame of Gamification. In: Mathias Fuchs, Sonia Fizek, Paolo Ruffino u.a. (Hg.): Rethinking Gamification. Lüneburg: meson press 2014, S. 289–303. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.25969/mediarep/725.
North Star Games. (2020). The Quacks of Quedlinburg. Retrieved March 11, 2020 from https://www.northstargames.com/products/the-quacks-of-quedlinburg
Richard, G.T. (2014). Designing for the audience: past practices and inclusive considerations. Learning, Education and Games. ETC Press, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 199–223. Retrieved from https://via.hypothes.is/http://remikalir.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Richardson2014.pdf
Wikipedia. (2019, October 2). The Quacks of Quedlinburg. Retrieved March 11, 2020 from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Quacks_of_Quedlinburg
Comments