You seem to be fundamentally confused on the entire concept of random chance (as your later blog regarding random encounters also demonstrates). Random chance is, by definition, random. And in a situation with losers and winners, random chance is — by its very definition — going to have an impact on the outcome.

@Joshua: If you just want to give an opinion (as Trask does) or just make a personal choice about whether to keep playing or not, go for it. But if you’re going to actually review something, then you have to actually take the time to experience it an analyze it.

For a movie that means watching the whole movie. If someone tells me that they turned the movie off after 5 minutes, that’s an opinion (and one that might be very informative). If someone tries to review a movie after only seeing 5 minutes of it, I will laugh in their face.

In the case of a complex boardgame, playing the game a single time is simply not demonstrative of the complete gameplay.

Trask

Joshua, my considerations are a little more involved than that. I’m sure you can decide if something you have tried only once is worth the effort and the time you would have to spend if you want to keep doing/watching/practicing/whatever any longer.
But most people cannot judge the quality nor the value of an activity until they have developed at least a little serious experience about it. I’m sure I can’t. Not because I’m stupid, but because almost all activities have some important aspects and subtleties which are not easy to spot until you are confronted with them (especially when these activities are quite different from the ones you are used to).
I lost count of the number of high quality TV series or comics that were underrated by critics on the basis of a superficial analysis of the first few episodes (I’m still “mourning” the suspension of Touching Evil US (2004), starring Jeffrey Donovan and Vera Farmiga, at the end of the first season… I think it was one of the best and deepest shows about human nature that ever aired on TV…). This is the reason why I appreciated Trask saying that this was a “session report” and not a review. Now that I have a better understanding of the the idea he was trying to convey I find absolutely nothing wrong at all with the post. He made a clear statement: “I think that a boardgame design should account for an unlucky series of coincidences during setup. Otherwise I consider such a boardgame badly designed”. Such a statement is perfectly reasonable, even if I don’t necessarily agree. It’s an interesting point of view. :)

You are, however, making my point for me. You said, “But you shouldn’t mistake an uncommon series of unlucky coincidences with a feature of bad design.” My argument is that any game that contains the potential for such a series of coincidences is badly designed. I am sure that many game of BSG are balanced and fun, conversely, many are not because it is all left to chance.

Trask, The Last Tyromancer

You say:
“The final item is the “secret cylon” aspect of the game. We had miserable luck and the Adama and the President were both cylons!”

Well, the “human team” REALLY had miserable luck! When a situation like this arises at the beginning of the game, humans are really in BIG trouble and their chances to win go down dramatically. But you shouldn’t mistake an uncommon series of unlucky coincidences with a feature of bad design. Most of the time the game plays out in a balanced way and the outcome is not decided until the very end.

I agree that one of the best tactics for cylon players is to waste actions and resources on unimportant threats and to encourage their buddies to make similar “mistakes”. It’s much more effective than actively sabotaging skill test, because “mistakes” draw less suspicion. But I can assure you that once players become more familiar with the game they will start to look for (and notice) “patterns of systematic inactivity” and they will soon grow suspicious of such behaviours. At that very moment the game will start to fly, drawing sustenance from the “trust issues” and paranoia developing among the players! Being a good cylon player requires subtlety, patience and a little “art”, especially when the character occupies a position of responsability (President or Admiral).

(Sorry for my English, I’m not a native English speaker and I tried to do my best to be clear…)

To be honest, the entire premise of the board game sounds pretty awesome. I’m a huge fan of Fantasy Flight Games as well. But the things you point out about it actually make sense. Still, reading your review about it actually did sound a lot like a roleplaying game. Very interesting…

As I have argued with Trask behind the scene, I don’t think the game is unbalanced. I think the game has an EXTREME random component. And if the tides get turned on one side or the other early in the game, they will have a heck of a time winning.

Having the Admiral and the President as a Cylon out of the gate killed us. The Admiral made sure we tool the “slow boat to Kobal”. The President with held the aid or the people. And by the time we got the both out of office, the damage was done.

I think Dave is right. Playing it again will probably yield a vastly different experience. And I also think Trask is right. This is a board game meant to roleplay!

I agree it’s a bit too long, but it’s certainly not a poorly designed or miserable board game.