Let's just drop the last two paragraphs in right here, so no one needs to go "it's an ad title, and a question, so it's almost guaranteed a no": --- "Tapestry

Let's just drop the last two paragraphs in right here, so no one needs to go "it's an ad title, and a question, so it's almost guaranteed a no": --- "Tapestry is complicated to assess. I'm certain its ideas are clever, even innovative, and it effectively reduces the civilization formula. But that word carries a double meaning. The game is reduced to essentials—a point-chaser that rewards both careful planning and outright chance. But it is also reduced to its bones, stripping away the interactions and narrative that make a two-hour civ-game such a holy grail among board gamers. The game is divisive, then, and likely to stay that way. I’m glad Stegmaier tried to take the civilization game beyond its comfort zone. Experiments are worthwhile, even when their results are imperfect, and this may be right for you. But when it comes to the reasons I play board games—the interactions between players, the narratives that arise from play, the thematic statements—this Tapestry is bare of the threads I value most"