A Game Where Ring Masters Mingle with Stock Brokers

Designer: Reiner Knizia

Artist: Marc Margielsky

Publisher: R&R Games

My gaming preferences generally align with those who enjoy mid-to-lightweight German-designed games. While I occasionally deviate from the consensus, my tastes agree with the general ratings of a game—we know what we like. This is why I’m so puzzled by the lack of attention and accolades for Spectaculum. The game received very little fanfare and has remained mostly under the radar even though the designer Reiner Knizia has a pretty vocal fan base that often trumpet his achievements and promote his games. For me, this is one of his better designs and one that deserves more attention.

A Divisive Title and a Whimsical Theme

Let’s start with the title, which is quite possibly the only negative thing I can say about the game. Spectaculum is the Latin word for “spectacle,” but it sounds too much like a medical device that does not conjure up fun times. I understand the title may have been intended to sound sophisticated, but I think it has backfired and morphed into a running joke. I believe the title is meant to reflect the spectacle that accompanies a circus troupe traveling between towns and putting on a show. In the game, there are four circus troupes each represented by a different color. Instead of assigning a troupe to each player, every player act as investors collectively recruiting performers across all the troupes, trying to make a quick buck by hiring and firing personnel. If that sounds like an odd way to earn money, well it is. At its core, Spectaculum is a pure stock market game that uses performers as a substitute for stocks and their fluctuating reputation as a gauge for profits. After all, a show is only as good as its performers, and I suppose you can cash in on their reputation.

Game play: A Stock Market in Disguise

In Spectaculum, players recruit performers based on the current value of the troupe. The value for each troupe is determined by individual reputation tracks, and the cost of recruiting and releasing performers is set by the value shown on these tracks. The reputation tracks are incredibly dynamic and will change between player turns, making each “buy” or “sell” decision very tactical.

To alter a troupe’s reputation, players place colored discs on the main board, simulating a traveling circus visiting different villages. Some villages welcome the performers, and the show is a rousing success, raising the troupe’s reputation by one to three points. On the other hand, a lousy performance reduces the troupe’s value by an equivalent number of points. The outcome of each performance is predetermined at the start of the game by randomly assigning chits of different values to each location.

In addition to chits that increase or decrease reputation, there are also red-bordered chits that impact individual player holdings. If a disc is placed on the “payday” chit, all performers in that troupe earn their owners two coins. Conversely, players are penalized two coins for each performer in the troupe if the disc is located on the “Illness” chit. In a way, two chits are akin to dividends issued by stocks, impacting individual investors in both a positive and negative fashion.

The Most Hated Mechanism: The Blind Draw

Perhaps the most debated and divisive part of Spectaculum happens during disc placement. Each turn, players draw three discs randomly from a bag. There are 24 discs in total for each of the four colors, representing each troupe. Whatever is drawn must be placed on the board. Players must place discs so they are always connected to the troupe’s existing route—placement cannot be separate from the main cluster. Not surprisingly, this lack of choice in the blind draw has rubbed some players the wrong way, as it forces them to advance a specific troupe instead of choosing which one they want to move.

One important rule is that the three discs must be placed back-to-back-to-back, but before or after this placement, players get to take exactly two performer actions, which can be any combination of hiring or firing performers—or, in stock market terms, buying or selling stocks.

The game proceeds with everyone taking turns drawing and placing discs and optionally hiring or firing performers until two end-game conditions are met. First, when any one of the four troupes enters the capital city at the center of the board, it immediately earns a +5 reputation bonus. In addition to the rule above, all but one of the red-bordered chits must have been landed on. When both rules are satisfied, the game ends instantly and everyone lets go of their performers, cashes in their profits, and tallies their total to find the winner.

Impressions

Thematic Mismatch Paired With an Elegant Design

There’s no argument that Spectaculum is a highly simplified stock market simulator with a rather odd theme. I admit that I love the whimsical and colorful artwork featuring circus performers traveling between villages and selling out their shows. However, there is a jarring mismatch when using this narrative to frame the in-game mechanisms. It’s confusing to “buy” or “sell” personnel based on the reputation of the troupes. While you can use “recruit” instead of “buy,” the hiring or firing of performers based on the reputation track to turn a profit just feels wonky and unintuitive.

Another narrative mismatch is that the fate of a troupe’s performance is predetermined before they even arrive at a village. This is because the chits are distributed throughout the map face-up, and the outcome of their performance before they arrive at the village is already known. It would make more sense if they were face-down, but I suppose for the purposes of game play, they have to be revealed ahead of time. Usually, an illogical theme makes learning a game much harder because a good narrative helps players internalize the rules. Fortunately, in Spectaculum, the rules are so simple that the head-scratching narrative doesn’t impact learning the game beyond providing a good chuckle. I don’t profess to know what the perfect theme should be, but as much as I think the circus theme is weak, I also think a straightforward stock market theme would be dreadfully boring.

A Spectacularly Stimulating Stock Market Simulator

Thematic relevance aside, Spectaculum is simply… well, spectacular in mimicking the rapid changes in stock market prices. It’s by far the best, stripped-down stock market simulator I have played. I am impressed by how dynamic the market is within the structure and duration of the game. The reputation tracks fluctuate often and can have occasional wild swings, but it doesn’t happen randomly. In fact, part of the skill in playing this game is identifying exactly when these swings will occur.

Predicting changes in the marketplace is a combination of looking at the board to understand the terrain, analyzing the state of the game at that precise moment, and, most importantly, anticipating player behavior. These three aspects must occupy your mind simultaneously while making a decision. Yet, despite what seems like a complicated process, the simple rules provide enough clarity for players to understand the variables and predict a few possible outcomes for each opponent.

The Importance of Understanding the Board Layout and Player Psychology

Every decision in the game boils down to first understanding the terrain on the board, particularly the distribution of the chits. At the start, chits are symmetrically positioned between the troupes, but their values and types are randomized. Some troupes may start closer to “good” chits (those with positive values or that yield dividends), while others may be faced with more “bad” outcomes. More often, each troupe will have a combination of “good” and “bad” chits scattered around. However, I use the terms “good” and “bad” loosely because even negative chits can be beneficial under the right circumstances. For instance, reducing a troupe’s reputation before hiring performers means you get them for cheap. Conversely, increasing a troupe’s value can block others from buying the same performers due to a lack of funds. Timing also matters. Letting go of performers at the peak of their reputation will net you more cash, and it is particularly satisfying if you can crash the market right after the sale by reducing its reputation.

All these decisions, however, rely on understanding a troupe’s environment and its potential future path. As the game progresses and discs are placed to extend a troupe’s route, some troupes will travel much farther on the map while others will be pigeonholed, never leaving far from the starting site. Ultimately, how far each troupe travels depends entirely on player choice and action. For example, a troupe might be surrounded by negative chits, but by going further, they could encounter villages with a mixture of positive and negative chits. And if the troupe continues to the furthest reaches of the board, it might actually find a “land of milk and honey.” However, since all troupes are advancing at roughly the same time, it’s not guaranteed that a particular troupe can reach its desired destination. Ultimately, the fate of a troupe rests on the collective decision of all players to either push or pull its progress. This is where understanding the incentives that drive player behavior becomes critical.

Temporary Alliances, Backstabbing and Gentle Persuasion are some of the Highlights of the Game

Spectaculum is as much about earning profits as it is about depriving your opponents of the same. Because the margins are small, the game is won by a player who can execute both efficiently, carving out small differentials each turn that benefit them while hurting others. Yet, the game also demands the formation of temporary alliances to benefit a subset of players. However, these alliances are fluid and can change within a single turn depending on how far the troupe has progressed on the board and the changing terrain.

Take, for example, a scenario where two players each have three red cards, and the third player has only one. A temporary alliance between the two majority holders could push the red cluster into areas with lots of good chits that will bump up its reputation. However, if all three players have three red cards, increasing the value of red results in a net-zero benefit for everyone. In this instance, players should figure out ways to cash in on red performers and simultaneously depress the reputation track to create a separation in earnings.

To extend the scenario further, some players may decide to tolerate a short-term hit in reputation if they bought their red cards when prices were really low, or if they see a “land of milk and honey” on the other side of the hill. The idea is that if they can take some short-term pain, there is long-term gain to be had. However, that equation immediately changes if the other majority holder decides to cut their losses and sell their red stock. In that case, the situation is flipped, with one player holding a significant majority in red cards now facing two opponents going all out to depress the value of the red track. The rapid changes in both stock market value and player incentives are what make this game so dynamic and fun. Yes, the game is tactical and can be brutal—as it should be.

I’ve realized that while playing Spectaculum, there is no rule against telegraphing your intentions to other players. In a way, you can sweet-talk or trash-talk your way into an alliance and follow it up with a backstab. In my one play, I laid out what I thought was a reasonable rationale for pushing a troupe in a positive direction. I directly appealed to one player to follow my lead in pushing a stock higher since they also owned stock in that color. However, I had made the mistake of purchasing one too many stocks of that color in the previous turn, and the perceived difference in value was large enough for her to take the opposite action. She depressed the reputation of the red troupe right after selling her own stock (I had five versus her three, while the third player had one). I was perceived as more of a threat to her. Instead of targeting the player with a single red card, I became the target. Ultimately, I had to pay through the nose and lost a lot of money in that turn. Had I only chosen to be less greedy and recruited a single red card (making the difference four vs. three), I believe she would have felt less threatened and accepted my plan. So, decisions in this game are coupled with individual risk-reward assessments that end up impacting player behavior. This is the part of Spectaculum that I find most outstanding: playing the other players.

Is the Blind Draw and Lack of Choice Really that Big of a Deal?

One of the biggest critiques of Spectaculum is the lack of player choice in the blind draw, where a player is forced to draw and place all three chits. There is a variant that allows drawing four chits and placing only three. I have not tried that variant, and I doubt I ever will. There’s a convincing argument from Mr. Molnar—a Knizia enthusiast and expert—that more choice doesn’t always equal more fun. I happen to agree with this thesis and see no reason to deviate from the original rules. Spectaculum plays quickly, and player turns are snappy. Our three-player sessions can be completed in 30-45 minutes. I find it refreshing that the time that would be spent pondering which disc to place is instead used for wondering how my placement incentivizes and influences others. Indeed, I find the exercise of thinking about my actions and how they may alter player behavior more exhilarating than other aspects of the game.

The one aspect of Knizia I admire most is his ability to strip a game down to its essence. This is true for Spectaculum, where the game is devoid of chrome or gimmicks. What remains is an unencumbered stock market simulation that is transparent in its execution and intentions. Even the unknowns—in disc selection and placement—can be deduced or the risk somewhat mitigated. Each player may have a different agenda, but it’s pretty clear that some troupes will have better potential to expand than others. Of course, whether that happens depends on the collective effort, and devising a strategy to make others align with your wishes is part of the fun.

A final note on this game: I delayed getting a copy of this game for the longest time, partly because it was out of print, but more so because the reviews for it were generally middling and unenthusiastic. I came in with a low bar and was very pleasantly surprised. Spectaculum has vaulted to the top of my favorite Knizia designs after several plays. It has all the elements that OG gamers seek, especially the part where players play against each other instead of against the system. Spectaculum has a bucket load of that and is reminiscent of Modern Art. I hope that a discerning publisher picks this one up for a retheming and reprinting of the game.

Final Thoughts

Spectacularly Great! Spectaculum is a splendid stock market game that is simple in its rules but complex in its game play and depth. For me, this is the game I will pull out if I want to manipulate the stock market and influence player behavior. The game itself is very simple to teach, but its nuances are many, such that I cannot recommend this as a family game with kids. The game is not one of perfect information, and there are some unknowns in how the market will fluctuate. However, information baked into the setup provides ample clues as to the potential of individual stocks to perform over time. It’s up to players to employ a combination of tactics and some cajoling to achieve their goal as the ultimate ringmaster (or perhaps stockbroker?).