I should be studying for my midterms and probably write more puzzles for this blog, but I’m writing this anyway. Two quick rants about certain aspects of board games.
Carcassonne is good as is. You don’t need to add the variant of holding tiles in hand to make it “more strategic and less luck”. Or rather, the standard game and this variant appeal to different people. The standard game is about risk management; you want to leave your options open so whatever tile you’ll draw, you have a good spot for it. The holding tiles one clearly removes this part, so it’s more about setting up good places based on what tiles you have in hand. This also applies to Kingdom Builder and other such stuff.
There’s no such thing as multiplayer solitaire, no such thing as no player interaction. Any competitive (at least two-player) game has player interaction, unless your objective is to get a personal high score instead of beating the other players (in which, go play yourself and not with others). Take Yahtzee as an example. This has the absolute smallest amount of player interaction; namely, you can’t interact with each other players directly, changing their rolls or whatever. But there’s still player interaction. If you’re leading, you adjust your play to take small/moderate moves but guaranteed points; if you’re trailing, you adjust your play to make big, risky moves that can potentially propel you up. The only reason your play style can change is because there are other players, so that’s most certainly player interaction. This also applies to Reiner Knizia’s Decathlon. And don’t talk to me about Dominion; it has much more player interaction than that, even if you don’t have attack cards or anything; you have market play, you watch the Province pile depleting fast, you change what you’re doing. No game has absolutely no player interaction. No direct interaction, yes, but there’s always some indirect interaction.
Okay, that’s all I can think of for now.