It’s been mentioned in a few circles and brought to my attention lately from a few different sources: many game designers only put in the arbitrary first-player rules because they don’t think it’s important for the game to decide, and that a group of adults should be capable of determining a first player on their own.
In kids games, often it’s “youngest goes first” as a slight handicap for the youngest player.
When it comes to fully-grown adults, they just put in fun, thematic but nonsense first-player methods because (I think):
There’s a strange pushback and outcry from fully-grown adults that are told to determine a first player without additional instruction
Games are supposed to be fun, and adding a thematic first-player rule can contribute towards steering the attitudes of the players towards humor
I strongly dislike games with a first player rule that is always going to be the same person when played within a family, group of friends, etc. It needs to be a trait that can change even if the players don’t, not a permanent status.
Best first player rule I can remember off the top of my head is Archaeology which specifically has a for fun first player rule (last person to step in sand) and a strategy first player rule (person with the lowest total value in their starting hand). Just pick which way you’re playing before cards are dealt.
EDIT: And of course if I scroll up I previously mentioned Archaeology in this thread. I really do like that first player setup apparently. More games should do it!
Yes, I agree with the fact that games that can involve kids, giving a first turn to the younger kid can be a good idea (as long as being first can be an advantage), but I admit that going the other way round with grown ups feels… lazy?
I also agree that if you are playing the same game several times, coming along with other ways to determine first turn is the way forward (or somebody who has already played the game, etc.). I guess my rant comes from the “come on, make an effort, mate” perspective that I have been indulged by games that are a bit newer, where they come along with a mildly comical made up rule.
Yeah “oldest” or “tallest” are particularly bad because it’s not absurd like “last to eat a rock” or semi-random like “most recently climbed a tree” (though, in that case, some consideration may be need to be made for people with physical limitations, e.g. “I’m older than 14 and am not particularly athletic”).
I tend to like the particularly irreverent ones, but that’s me and my sense of humor. Serious, thematic ones, like Bridges of Shangrila are also good.
I don’t like having to try and assign each person an equal fraction of an imaginary circle centred on the table. Like, sure it’s pointing a little more towards Bob than Alice, but it landed right next to Bob and he’s all on his own there while Alice is standing right next to Cat, so actually it’s pointing to Alice’s quintant (is that a word?) and Alice is the start player.
I know this is a daft concern and rarely makes any difference that matters.
Component toss is easy to define from a fixed start point - component that goes furthest is start player.
I think what I’d ideally like to see is “choose randomly, but [first|last] player will have a slight advantage”. I don’t get as irked as some people over the odd choosing systems, but that may be because I basically never use them. Ditto external tiebreakers like planting a tree; to me they’re a big flag saying “this isn’t really game rules any more, this is just the rulebook writer having some fun”.
For me it’s everyone is assigned a result and an appropriate die is rolled. Fastest and random enough to just get on with playing. I’m not for everyone tolling their own die and highest first due to the drag of rerolls. D6 to D10 covers my most common gaming numbers.
I do agree with Roger though, these rules are it’s just a have something in there for those who need it. Reminds me of Isaac Childres saying to Matt Lees in an interview his movement rules are extensive for people who want the rules but he doesn’t see it as cheating when people simplify or adjust for thematic reasons. While that is a worm hole of problems it also highlights that rules are sometimes included so people won’t get upset that they’re missing.
I tend to pick up a component on each colour - e.g. the score marker - and just do a component drop. Do multiple component drop on dynamic turn orders.
Chwazi is the 2nd option, but it’s a bit slow with the nonsense opening animation.
What about later when everyone awkwardly has their hands all over your phone and the thing just won’t work?! I can’t count how many times I pulled that out and then gave up because it wouldn’t actually select a first player.
@Benkyo component throw less ambiguous, you say? I played ball for many years. I could probably generally always go first (and then good luck finding the bits).
