Review: Morels

Originally published at: https://statelyplay.com/2018/12/11/review-morels/

iOS, Android •


While my gaming desires tend to lean toward heavier fare such as Through the Ages or Twilight Struggle, there’s a warm place in my heart for simple, quick card games. Games that, while sitting at your child’s Holiday Concert and you spot another dad from your game group, can be played without dedicating all your attention, thus lowering the chances of your wife catching you sneaking turns. This is an entirely hypothetical situation, by the way. I’d never play games…who am I kidding? Lost Cities was our School Concert/Play/Sports game of choice but it has been surpassed by a little game that, until November, none of us had played, Morels. [Whoa, big reveal! It’s in the title of the piece you dink -ed.]

Morels is a game about picking and, more importantly, devouring mushrooms and comes complete with a disclaimer touting the dangers of hunting and eating shrooms on your own. I’m far too lazy to head out and pick my own mushrooms, but if Morels inspires you to do so, don’t come running back to Mossbark or Two Lanterns Games when you mistake a Destroying Angel for a Chanterelle.

I’m getting ahead of myself. There’s no death, hallucinations, or even violent gastro-intestinal discomfort involved in Morels. In fact, the game is a pleasant way to go about killing a few minutes now and then. Offering a smidgen of strategy and tactics, Morels is a game that suits the Stately crowd, but it’s also easy enough to grok that digital board game neophytes can jump right in.

What we have is a set collection game in which players wander the woods, aka card drafting line, searching for the shroom of their dreams. Even non-mycophiles know that just collecting the fungi isn’t the endgame; the best thing about mushrooms is the taste, especially with a lot of butter and, if you’re especially adventurous, cider. If you want to score points in Morels, you’ll have to saute your quarry, earning points for the number and type of mushrooms in the pan. Without grabbing pans to cook, your score will be unfavorably low, and hoarding pans to prevent your opponent from cooking is a valid, if hard to pull off, strategy.

[caption id=“attachment_6865” align=“aligncenter” width=“1000”]

There are also bad mushrooms that can poison you, but I find they never get picked up (for good reason) and only really block you from picking up the Decay pile. Oh, I didn’t mention that either. Wow, I’m terrible.[/caption]

If you don’t want to cook your sets of 3+ mushroom, you can always trade in pairs or better for “foraging sticks”. These are an in-game currency which allow you to pull cards from earlier in the drafting line. Otherwise you’re stuck waiting for the juiciest morsels to slowly make their way to the free slots at the end. Of course, a savvy opponent will know what you’re looking for and pounce on them before you get a chance. This balance between eating and transmuting your catch is a tight rope to walk and one I haven’t managed to master. It’s a given that I’ll never have enough sticks to grab that last Fairy Ring or Lawyer’s Wig in time.

There’s more to Morels that flesh out the game a bit and make it a deeper experience than the aforementioned Lost Cities. Most cards are “day” cards offering one type of goodie, but there are also “night” cards–one for each type of mushroom–that count as a pair. You don’t know which species of fungi you’re going to get when you pick up a Night card, however, but at least you always know you can trade it in for foraging sticks (it is a pair, after all). Getting an injection of two shrooms that you were actively collecting can make a world of difference, however, and can bring a player who’s far behind to a more respectable point total.

There’s also butter and cider which add points to your cooked delights, if your sets are big enough. You’ll need at least four shrooms for the butter and a massive five for the cider, however. If you’re really insane, you can try to collect nine of one type and use both butter and cider, but most of the species don’t even have that many cards in the entire deck. Proceed with caution.

Morels is a fun, light game that I’ve really been enjoying. The app itself is rather sparse, but it does everything it needs to. There are three levels of AI as well as online, asynchronous play. The game uses “friend codes” instead of a proper login, which is annoying, but manageable. I find that the game is far less rewarding when playing asynchronously than in real time. The short turns combined with long waits deadens a bit of the joy, but if you can manage to both log on together (with a friend at, I don’t know, your kid’s holiday concert) and play in real time, I guarantee you won’t only play once. There’s an addictive quality to the quick gameplay and it doesn’t hurt that the app is pretty to look at and has that awesome “clacking” sound when you earn or spend foraging sticks.

I can’t wait to see what Mossbark works on next, but I know I’ll be playing a lot of Morels while I’m waiting.

https://youtu.be/s8T0bb_kspI
1 Like

Great review! Better than mine. :stuck_out_tongue:

I still really like this game, but I am beginning to think that even though Mossbark is awesome for including asynchronous, it’s not as fun that way.

Though why are you complaining? You’re kicking my ass in our game. :stuck_out_tongue:

1 Like

Not complaining, just agree with you that async isn’t as fun and just cranking out a game over 5 minutes.

1 Like

That’s actually an interesting thing that I may eventually enlarge into a post at some point.

I know a lot of us won’t bother with a game if the multiplayer isn’t async. Yet some games (like Colt Express, or even short games like Morels) don’t really lend themselves to async because of either time (5 minutes for a Morels game) or because of hidden programming (try remembering what’s been played in a Colt Express game over a few days).

Yet for a short game like Morels, how many of us who live across the country from each other are going to try to sync up to play a game like that? I can’t imagine you and I (for example) just saying “hey, let’s play Morels at 9:00 pm Eastern time.”

Maybe for a longer game, but then we get back into the “who has the time to do that?” argument.

Not sure where I am in all of that, but it is something to think about.

2 Likes

I think that is a very astute observation. Some games work better with async and others just are not as much fun when played that way. Games where you have to remember things that happened in previous turns are particularly challenging when turns don’t happen immediately; and when you may be playing multiple games.

In a related thought, I’ve often thought there are some games that work well in digital form and others that don’t. My thoughts are that it depends on the amount of player interaction in the game; such as Smash-Up where you are sticking it to your friends. What fun is it to do that if you cannot see their reaction and tease each other?

1 Like

Agreed. Nomad also did Love Letter, which I feel the same way about. It’s not fun playing a Guard and guessing your friend’s ID correctly when you’re looking at a screen.

Great points! Mind if I use them in my post?

I do agree with you guys as well, that some games just aren’t made for asynchronous play, but then the question becomes why they exist in the first place. The beauty behind asynchronous is that I don’t have to set up a time to play a game with my friends that live in various areas of the country and have all sorts of different schedules with work/family/etc. Am I supposed to get “9:00pm CT two weeks from now” in everyone’s calendar so that we can all play a 5 minute game of Love Letter?

That’s the beauty of asynchronous play. It may not enhance the gameplay; it may not even work spectacularly well for a certain game. But asynchronous means I can actually play it with my friends, which is the whole point of board games for me.

1 Like

Correct! I’m totally not against including async. Morels is a good example of how/why async should be in every game. Sure, it’s not as fun as playing in real-time, but starting an async game means that it could, at some point, break into a real-time game (if we both just happen to have time and respond to our notifications immediately). Thus, we got our real-time game and the scheduling didn’t have to occur (because it never will). Worst case, that doesn’t happen and we get a slightly less satisfying async game in. Everyone wins.

I’m not sure that I’m describing this very well…

1 Like

No, I think that’s a perfect way to describe it.

I’ve had that beauty happen occasionally.

The only thing I worry about (only because I’m a worrier, not because it’s probably an issue) is if I do have to go away again, how long will that person be sitting there waiting for my turn before realizing I’ve left for good? Especially if it’s an ongoing game where we do rematches whenever we’ve finished a game.

I worry about this as well, but, then again, if my opponent leaves and I’m waiting a minute or so before realizing their next turn isn’t forthcoming, I’m totally fine with it. Why I would think they wouldn’t feel the same way is odd, but I’m rather odd.

1 Like

Then we’re both odd, because I’m the same way.

I worry about how others feel about something that I know I wouldn’t feel the same way about if the positions were reversed.

1 Like

Fortunately a number of games (like TTA) have an online indicator. If my friends al go offline, I’m not going to sit there staring at the screen waiting for a move to happen. And if I leave and get a notification in a minute, oh well. With my friends, there is no expectation that a game will be played in real time. It happens by coincidence sometimes like the way you describe, but nobody is expected to stay logged on.

1 Like

I think most of these games do have that indicator.

It’s just a mental thing with me.

Go ahead. I’m curious to see what you have to say.

And…it’s posted!

Took me a couple of days to really get in the writing mood.

I hope I’ve done it justice.

1 Like