My Rant Against Hidden Trackable Information

My Rant Against Hidden Trackable Information

Perhaps this is a byproduct of playing entirely too many games on Board Game Arena, or maybe I’ve just become more sensitive to it since having kids and watching my sleep health deteriorate entirely, but I hate hidden trackable information in board games.

First, a definition.

Hidden Trackable Information (HTI) refers to information that everyone at the table could be tracking and therefore knows with 100% certainty, but which is deliberately hidden. I’m not talking about drawing cards into your hand in Ticket to Ride, even if you use the public market every turn, because you could still be drawing blindly from the deck, and that information is hidden.

What I mean is something more like Puerto Rico, where scores are completely trackable, but for some reason the scores are told to be hidden. Or For Sale, where you can, and probably should, be tracking how much money each player is paying at each auction, and therefore how much money they have left for future bids, but the rules insist on keeping your bank accounts private.

Here’s my real problem with hidden trackable information: I’m dumb. And I play games with really smart people.

I don’t mind losing because I made tactical errors, or because randomness bit me in the ass. I can handle that just fine. But when I lose because I wasn’t able to keep every piece of data in my head while my opponents were successfully counting cards or tracking points, it feels incredibly discouraging.

A good example is El Grande. Players drop cubes into the castle, and when it’s time to score, the cubes are revealed and whoever has the majority scores the points. I find it deeply frustrating to sit there trying to remember who put cubes in and how many. Should I commit three cubes because I think that puts me into the majority? Should I commit four just to be safe? If I had been writing this down as players added cubes, I’d be able to make an informed decision instead of guessing based on vibes and vibes alone.

El Grande board with many cubes scattered over the provinces

As most parents do, I’m going to blame my children.

Over the past five years, my sleep has been constantly interrupted by rugrats. Unfortunately for me, no one else in my game group has kids. They usually show up to game night well rested and emotionally stable, ready for a long game of cold calculations. Meanwhile, I’m crawling in on four hours of sleep because my five-year-old was awake for three hours from 1am to 4am, terrified she was going to swallow her first loose tooth (true story).

Some people have very strong opinions about hidden trackable information. I’m always surprised by the ferocity with which people will defend games that use HTI, and rail against the mere idea of someone using a memory aid or taking notes.

“It makes games so much less enjoyable!”
“memory is a skill! That’s part of playing the game!”

In furtherance of me being dumb, playing a lot of board games online has absolutely made my brain lazy. The Yucata version of El Grande shows you exactly what’s in the castle at all times, because, ostensibly, you could be tracking that information yourself. BGA has a notes feature built right into the interface, allowing you to jot things down at any time. Somewhat ironically, I almost never use it, but I’m glad it’s there, especially for those async games that stretch over weeks.

The most common defences of HTI seem to be that it reduces analysis paralysis and prevents king making. If everyone knows exactly who’s winning, the table will pile on the leader. If all information is open, players might spend far more time puzzling out the optimal move instead of trusting their gut and just playing the game. To me, this sounds like the defence of well rested players relying on their more simple compatriots making mistakes to cement their victory.

So where is the line? When is hidden trackable information okay?

Would you allow someone to look through a discard pile to check whether a card had already been played, and they just missed it? Would you allow a player to look into their bag in Orléans or Automobiles to confirm what cubes they even have available to them?

If you let someone shift through their discard pile, would you let them look through the previously played tricks to see if that jack of hearts had already been played? Some games like Cat in the Box are very friendly to players like me, because they include a whole board for everyone to track what cards have already been played.

Now, I will concede that playing El Grande with perfect information makes the reveal much less exciting. Sometimes imperfect information really does create a different, and occasionally better, experience. I’ll also concede that taking this argument to its logical extreme is annoying. I absolutely don’t want to play with someone who’s maintaining a full spreadsheet of which cards have appeared and which ones I’ve drafted while playing Star Realms. As with most things, nuance matters.

Some games only work with HTI. Trio, for instance, should be a simple game of memory, but for some reason it makes me feel like my brain is melting out of my ears. But the game only really shines when players are making mistakes and struggling to remember if they already know what someone’s lowest card is. The ever shifting information of players hands helps facilitate that feeling as well. Similarly, Wandering Towers would be really boring if those towers were clear.

As with all things, context matters. I’m generally pretty against HTI in economic euro games, because the purpose or goal of those games are to be the most efficient, and obscuring some information goes against the spirit of the game. In other, less mathematical games, where the purpose of the game is to evoke specific feelings, then HTI makes sense.

But in my opinion, someone who insists on preserving HTI and then wins because of my poor memory is no better than someone winning a game because their opponent forgot a rule and had a critical turn derailed. I’d much rather win or lose with everyone playing at their best, rather than because someone couldn’t remember how many cubes were dropped into a tower.

All of this said, I’m speaking from a place of privilege. No one at my table suffers from serious analysis paralysis. No one quarterbacks co-op games. No one is deliberately exploiting information asymmetry to bully less confident players. I’m not arguing that HTI is always bad, or that it should be purged from game design entirely.

But I am saying this: if the deciding factor in a strategy game is who remembered better, or who was able to silently run a second game in their head while also playing the first one, then that’s not a test of strategy I find especially compelling anymore.

I want to win or lose because I made better decisions with the information in front of me. I want my mistakes to be tactical, not neurological. When a game rewards someone for tracking numbers in their head while pretending they aren’t there, it doesn’t feel clever to me, it feels exclusionary.

Maybe that’s the sleep deprivation talking. Maybe it’s too many games on BGA. Or maybe it’s just that, at this stage of my life, I’m less interested in proving I can remember how many cubes went into a tower three rounds ago, and more interested in making interesting choices right now. If that means occasionally letting players look into their bag and confirm the information that was available to them all along? I’m fine with that. I’d rather play a game where everyone can see the whole picture, than one where the real contest is who forgot the least.

El Grande

El Grande

It’s difficult trying to review a game like El Grande. For one, it’s quite revered. Some of the biggest names in board games call it their favourite game. El Grande was released in 1995, and to this day still sits in the Board Game Geek’s top 100 games list.

My problem with El Grande has nothing to do with El Grande. It’s a me problem. I generally don’t like area majority games. I struggle to find the fun in gerrymandering, and generally amassing armies and controlling plots of dirt feels more like a pissing contest than an exciting game.

With that introduction, let’s talk about El Grande specifically. El Grande, designed by Wolfgang Kramer and Richard Ulrich, is a 2 – 5 area majority game, where players are playing as Grande’s in medieval Spain. The King’s influence is sagging, and everyone is in a hurry to grow their influence in each of the regions.

In play, Players have a hand of power cards, numbered from 1 to 13, and each card offering a vanishing number of caballeros that will be brought in from the general supply to your court, ready for deployment. In player order, each player plays one of their cards, ensuring they don’t play the same number as anyone who came before them. Then, whoever played the highest card gets to go first. They select one of the 5 action cards along the bottom of the board. Each of these power cards pull double duty. They both have an action on it, and allow you to place a number of caballeros from your court onto the board. Once each player has taken their action card, the round is over and whoever played the lowest number last round starts the next one. A scoring happens every 3 rounds, and after 3 scorings, the player with the most points, wins!

That’s literally it. It’s such a simple set of rules, it’s so clean and pure as far as games go, that if you do like area majority games, El Grande is this brilliant gem. The perfect distillation of an area majority game. It’s real easy to teach, very quick to get started, and while you’re playing, each turn is really smooth. There’s not much for players to forget and get caught up on. It’s a joy to behold!

All the actions in El Grande have consequence. Everything you place out, anything you move or influence, affects everyone else at the table. Sometimes the consequences of your actions aren’t immediately apparent. Like turning one of the lowest scoring provinces with a measly two caballeros on it into the single highest scoring region, and ultimately, drawing the attention of every other player.

This province started with 2 red cubes, then I made it lucrative.

Every decision feels impactful. The power card you put down determines both the turn order and how many caballeros move from the general supply into your court. The action cards determine both the number of caballeros you can move from your court onto the board, and what action you get to take. The province you’re allowed to place in is restricted by where the king is, but many of the actions allow you to bend that rule. Perhaps you’re tied for majority in a particularly juicy region, one of the actions could allow you to slip an extra caballero into that region, or even better, eject an opposing one back to their court.

The actions give flexibility where the placement restrictions of the game give security. I can see why people like this game, it’s really a marvel to behold! It’s so simple and yet so deep, tense and exciting, interactive and yet approachable. To this day, I haven’t seen anyone suggest there’s been an El Grande ‘killer’. It’s elegant, which is particularly spectacular, especially when modern area-majority games seem to be over-complicated and over-wrought in plastic.

Blood Rage. Photo Credit: Peter Lowe via Board Game Geek

And yet, I didn’t have fun. I won the most recent game we played, mostly by focusing on just getting the most caballeros around the board, got an early lead, and held onto it for dear life while the other players tried to buck me from my precious soil. El Grande feels much more tactical than strategic. The only things that REALLY matter are how your units are situated when the 3 scorings happen, everything else is just posturing for that moment.

I also think that El Grande has a run-away leader problem. Once someone has points, you can’t take them away. Someone getting away in the first scoring may paint a target on their back, but each other player still needs to overcome their lead. Something else that isn’t a problem with El Grande, is that experienced players would/should utterly crush inexperienced players. There’s very little you can do to stymie a well-thought-out move.

Unlike a lot of other area majority games, adjacency largely doesn’t matter. The caballeros enter play next to the king, and the majority of the actions give very free movement (when they give movement). Even moving units out of the Castillo is very free (aside from the taboo area of the King).

I can see the brilliance of El Grande, which really cements the fact that area majority games are just not for me. The tactility of spreading your influence across the board, biding your time to make a clutch move, the exciting reveal of who had the most units in the Castillo, AND where they’re going to provide support, creating a last minute shake-up in who controls which province. It’s easy to get excited about El Grande! It’s a great game, if you enjoy area majority games.

For me, El Grande isn’t fun. I don’t like spreading my influence around and hoping that the others players won’t take away the thing I’ve chosen to chase. I can see why some people love it, but I just do not find this game mechanic fun. I’m bored during the first two rounds Because only the scoring round matters. I’m exhausted when my whole turn is undone by someone putting the same number of callberos into the same province as me. There isn’t anything objectively bad in El Grande, but this game really isn’t for me.

There are other area majority games that I do enjoy, like Inis or Brian Boru, but in those games, area majority is only a part of the gameplay, there are other aspects for me to focus my attention. The other game that comes to mind is Hansa Tetunica, which I adore, but there’s a bit more of an action efficiency and engine building mechanic that I really enjoy, more than controlling specific areas. Also, once you have your cube or disc in a building, the only thing other players can do is place their own resources in the same spot, they can’t kick you out.

Honestly, El Grande hits like a required reading novel. The kind where educated and experienced people tell you that “it’s brilliant” and you can find dozens of essays dissecting every aspect of the book, but when a student reads it, it’s just another book. What’s so great about Animal Farm anyways? It’s just a bunch of pigs putting on clothes?

Do not take my opinion for El Grande. If you find any enjoyment in area majority games, this is THE ONE to play. A colourful new edition was just released that looks fantastic. Please seek out others who enjoy El Grande and enjoy this game. But please don’t invite me to that game night.