Yesterday I had the opportunity to be one of the first people to play Founding Fathers, part of a small bunch of the games sent via air mail from the Chinese printers to arrive in time for Origins. (I will write a review of Origins once it is all done).
Founding Fathers is the newest game from <PERSON> and <PERSON>, the co-designers of 1960: The Making of the President. <PERSON> was also the co-designer of Twilight Struggle. I have a special place in my heart for this design team, as 1960 was one of the games that got me back into gaming - even though my affection for it lessened with each play.
Again dipping into U.S. history, <PERSON> and <PERSON> have created a game about the authoring of the U.S. Constitution. You play one of five of the Founding Fathers of the United States, attempting to be the primary influencer of the document in order to be recognized as the "father" of the country. I thought this was a super theme and was certainly intrigued to play.
Play centers around three primary mechanics: voting on issues, deciding issues in committee, or having the most influence in debate across the four factions in the game (Federalists, Large States, Small States and Anti-Federalists). Each of these are largely straightforward in their mechanics. Similarly straightforward are the four actions each player can take on their turn: to have a delegate vote "Yea" or "Nay" on the current issue, to commit delegates to the debate tracks for the four factions, to use the Action on the card of a delegate, or to jettison your delegates and redraw. Each player starts with three delegates in their hand: the Founding Father they are playing and two other delegates. These cards have flavour text, action text and clarify which state and faction they are affiliated with.
Players earn victory points based on how successfully they commit delegates to winning issues, how well they do in the debates at the end of the game, and based on special actions on the delegate cards. Thus you are trying to come in on the "right" side of issues - yea or nay - while steering the faction control behind the issues and debates in a way that proves advantageous to your debate equity at the end of the game. 366
Nice, clean, simply.
Overall I like the game and plan to buy it, but that is largely because I think my children will benefit from the theme and history - not because I see it being a fixture in my personal play. Don't get me wrong: it has a lot going for it. But ultimately I think it has myriad problems that keep it in the realm of being a "good" game as opposed to being "special" in a way that it seductively at times seems to be.
Starting with the things I like about it, the basic actions and mechanics of the game are nice and smooth. What you're trying to do, and how, is crisp. There is also a nice layering of strategic and tactical considerations, with multiple paths to victory. I suspect that with a group of 5 smart, cutthroat gamers who learn the system this is going to be a deep and challenging game with various levels of meta-gaming possibility. As mentioned before, the theme is really attractive as well. While these are just a few points in favour, they are all really important points and before going into the litany of problems I have with Founding Fathers I want to emphasize that.
The first problem and biggest disappointment I have with the game is the graphic design. Ever since the gorgeous cover art was first published I expected this game to set a new standard in graphic design. Unfortunately there were a variety of failures with the bits; here are my biggest gripes:
- The card design has information on the back of the card - the state of the delegate and the faction they represent - intended to be viewable to all other players while being held in their owner's hand during the game, to help them make strategic decisions. In trying to be slick with the graphics they made these card backs unusable. While the faction icons are nice, crisp, light coloured and a very visible contrast to the dark cards - and in the upper corner to boot! - the state name runs down the side of the card and the font is poorly chosen in terms of its weight and colour. I could rarely-to never see what state the cards my opponents were holding was. They include some little flag-like things but who is going to know what all 13 of those different, arcane symbols represent? That is an absolute critical fail, given that the designers felt it important enough to include the information for all to see to begin with! Trying to make it "slick" became the enemy of the usable, and players of the game are the losers.
- The small cards with each player's Founding Father on one side and the overview of play on the other was just...sloppy. 366