High Society – A Sobering Filler

The first time I played High Society I didn’t get it. I wasn’t in the right place and it left my mind as soon as it left the table. Whether my worldview has simply expanded or the tumor of cynicism has grown, this time it was different. This time the not-so-subtle message hit me square in the gut and I couldn’t shake it.


This simple 20 minute auction design was first released in 1995. Osprey games has given it the Criterion Collection treatment, beautifying the illustrations and modernizing the production. There’s an obvious effort of widening the title’s representation which is appreciated and commendable.

Mechanically, this one’s a pie. It’s easy to slip into the social duel of a round-table bid. It bears more than a few similarities to the classic No Thanks! and For Sale. There’s that typical alternating one upmanship as the offers escalate and bills flow from your fingertips.

The concept is that we’re all living it up, trying to hack it in the realm of the socially elite. We’re those smiling grand bastards making up the one percent and dropping wads of cash as fast as we earn it.

The winner of each auction acquires some new fancy duds or even a ridiculous banquet of food far too rich for my cockroach blood. Where Knizia upsets the cart is in mixing in two special types of cards – a few worth negative points and a few that multiple your score by two.

The bidding for those cards that represent scandals and faux paus work in reverse – the first player to drop out takes the rotten cake and the others discard their cash.

This is a pretty subtle system that relies heavily on interaction and bumping up against your opponents in order to manipulate the game state and come out ahead. There’s much cleverness in limiting your money to specific increments as well as offering the two very discordant auction types. There’s also this fantastic sense of drama just below the surface as the game can end at virtually any time. This is triggered by the appearance of four special cards which injects an enticing sense of push your luck.

All of this is given weight by the cruel wrench of formally eliminating the player at game’s end who spent the most money. While this design incentivizes you to spend like a heathen and hoard the garish uniforms of the rich, you have to be just scrupulous enough to avoid completely destroying your fortune. It’s not about outrunning the bear, but simply being faster than the slowest poke.

If you manage to avoid elimination, then you compare your total points against those of the other elitists, with a single player claiming victory as the highest of snobs.


All this rules nonsense doesn’t matter.

What really matters is the theme at the heart of High Society. This is a piece of game design that’s morose in its perspective. It’s unabashedly critical of consumerism and by proxy, Western culture.

To “win” at this game one needs to adopt the conflicted worldview that actual wealth is not tied to financial responsibility, but to shedding money in favor of appearing affluent. But be careful and don’t spend too much or you’ll end up on the street and eating out of a dumpster. These two ideals clash ruthlessly and on the surface don’t make philosophical sense within the terms the game lays out. This is with purpose.

You need to be the best at living a certain lifestyle and maintaining proper optics. It’s all about keeping up with the Joneses and the rot at the center of our society. The game’s not even subtle in its warped position and the rules it forces us to operate under. On one hand it’s intensely clever, and on the other it’s inherently horrific.

Deconstructing that win condition of having the best “stuff” and how this dovetails with the auction is at the heart of truly understanding this game.

Here’s where it gets interesting.

Let’s imagine for an instant we all refuse to play the game. We take these rules as dictated by the wealthy and we tell them to shove it up their collective ruffled tush. In a moment of solidarity we form our own little revolution.

In this case we’d all repeatedly pass, refusing to bid even a precious dollar. The game carries on, even if erratically, some of us gain points and some of us lose points from being saddled with free cards. All of us, however, maintain our currency and become good little savers.

When the game ends we all lose. We’re eliminated for possessing the least money, in this instance a multi-way tie, and High Society snuffs us out like the bugs we are.

Yet, in this case I would argue we all actually attain a sense of integrity the game wishes to forcibly strip away from us. By positioning gameplay through this prism of moral corruption, the cultural significance of the design emerges. It seeks criticism and enlightenment through satire to great effect. In many ways, this sense of mockery is merely an extension of what Knizia touched upon in his earlier work, Modern Art. Both seek to offer a sobering viewpoint on value and its societal definition.

Each of these sibling designs convey their criticism through interaction. The denigration of our culture occurs as a result of participants enforcing a crooked ideal of wealth upon each other.

The final twist of that sharp blade is the realization that we’re doing this to ourselves.


There’s a fantastic multi-faceted view triangulated around this game’s system. This intersection attempts to define value, and each of the three viewpoints bump together awkwardly.

The first perspective is of High Society’s internal game mechanisms – spend your cash loosely and dining fine, but also make sure to squirrel away just a wee bit. It evaluates your performance based on your ability to acquire, while also holding back ever so slightly.

The second angle is that of the players seeking monetary valuations on those different acoutrements. We determine what a dapper coat or suave pair of shoes cost as we’re the market forces behind the internal dynamics. We also determine that cut-off line of how much spending is simply too much. This is where the struggle and conflict in the design arises.

The final view is the one from our intestines. It’s reconciling real-world ethics with our sense of morality. What valuations are we placing on our character’s actions and behavior within this system? What does that say about us and our culture? It’s heavy stuff if you peel away from the table and really contemplate it.

Where these three meet is where that magic happens.

There’s an intense criticism rampant in our culture of those who fall into squalor, particularly those who lost it all among the socially elite. Compare this to our continual fervor towards spending and consumerism. We don’t value status or wealth based on how much money someone has in their bank account, rather, we judge them by their bling and hardware. Their financial health behind the scenes is inconsequential as long as they can maintain that cracked facade.

As a society, we’re ill.


With this updated edition Osprey fulfilled their end of the bargain. By leaving the inner workings alone and simply giving the proceedings a facelift, it’s as if they’ve recognized the more things change the more they stay the same. While the lights may be brighter and the buildings taller, the stark philosophical reality at the core is just as appropriate today as it was 20 years ago.

High Society’s primary achievement is in conveying thematic weight that outstrips its size. This is a thoughtful design shaped with a sense of purpose, and in many respects it’s one of the best examples of a game being more than a game.

I raise my top hat to you Reiner Knizia.


A review copy was provided by the publisher.

If you enjoy what I’m doing at Player Elimination and want to support my efforts, please consider dropping off a tip at my Ko-Fi.

  27 comments for “High Society – A Sobering Filler

  1. Ian Allen
    May 21, 2018 at 1:52 pm

    Wow … you took what I have always thought of as the quintessential 10 minute filler game and wrote about 10 times as much about it as I would have thought possible. It was an interesting read.
    It’s like you took a banana and made a 7 course meal out of it.

    Reiner Knizia games are solid and ubiquitous, but there is a giant pool of deeper games out there that need your creative spotlight on them!

    I guess every review can’t be about an Ameritrash juggernaut, but …. “look at my pocketwatch please … focus … focus …you are getting sleepy ….. your eyelids are …
    feeling very heavy …… you want very badly to review only medium-to-heavy Ameritrash board games …… when I snap my fingers you will wake up and the name Reiner Knizia will only be a blank spot in your memory ….
    4 , 3, 2, 1 …. SNAP! ….”

    Liked by 1 person

    • May 21, 2018 at 2:09 pm

      Ha! Point taken Ian. I think I’ll have something more your style next week – no promises though as I haven’t written it yet.


      • Ian Allen
        May 21, 2018 at 4:36 pm

        I do like the new art though – it does give this game a much more decadent feel. The last version of the game that I had was very cartoonish. After looking at the new characters I almost wish they were even more decadent – burning 100 dollar bills to light cigars, resting their feet on the back of a servant, throwing velcro wrapped little people at a velcro target on the wall and so forth … what was the movie … Wolf of Wall Street?

        Can you even make a politically incorrect filler game these days? I mean Kingdom Death didn’t make any great strides forward for the feminist movement and it did ok …


        • May 21, 2018 at 4:54 pm

          That art direction would have been spectacular, I like your thinking there.

          If Kingdom Death was more widely distributed and culturally more significant within the hobby board game industry, I think it would have received more criticism. It kind of exists off in this niche where I think the average gamer cares very little about its political correctness (I don’t mean this judgmentally in any way).


  2. May 21, 2018 at 4:53 pm

    This is a really thoughtful piece! I love board game writing that dissects both theme and mechanisms so deeply to lay bare its views of society! Also, I agree that the art nouveau visuals really help with hammering the game’s point home.

    Liked by 1 person

    • May 21, 2018 at 4:56 pm

      Thank you for reading and the kind words! I think this type of commentary/discussion of games is the most interesting and needed in my opinion.

      Liked by 1 person

      • May 21, 2018 at 6:31 pm

        Definitely the most interesting kind to me! I try to do a little bit of that in my history & board games articles, but that’s usually more superficial as I try to cover multiple games in one post. So it’s really great to see such an in-depth treatment!

        Liked by 1 person

  3. May 21, 2018 at 7:04 pm

    Love the review Charlie, but I will say that we talked to Reiner about 5 months ago about his design process when we interviewed him about Modern Art being 25 years old and what he told us is this. He makes the game, he designs the mechanisms and after that he feels like the publisher needs to theme it and find the art, that’s not his job. So while I think what you are finding in the mechanisms could tie into your thoughts, it may not be Knizia you should be tipping your hat to in this instance, although he deserves hat tipping any time we get a chance.

    Liked by 3 people

    • May 21, 2018 at 7:14 pm

      You were one of those kids who told people Santa wasn’t real, aren’t you?

      I suppose this could launch an interesting discussion on finding meaning where it’s not intended. Does a publisher or developer finding that connection and maybe pushing the game in that direction (who knows what mechanisms they tweaked for this) make this less valid? I don’t think so – and I realize your comment was suggesting I merely give credit to the publisher instead of Reiner, so I’m not intending to argue or disagree with you.

      This is a vastly complicated issue with art in general and something I’m not sure we could really do justice in some comments. Still, something interesting to think about.

      So in summary, hats off to whoever deserves it.

      Liked by 1 person

      • May 21, 2018 at 7:19 pm

        Absolutely it is something to think about and I love that you did!! It made for a fun review of a game that should have a fun, thoughtful review.


        • December 11, 2018 at 10:52 pm

          Brandon, let me put some Santa magic back into this discussion and help out Charlie a bit. I think what Knizia meant was that he can live with the publisher having strong opinions on setting/theme, so he (Knizia) might be more inclined to accept a change request there.

          However, he does not design (many) of his games in a clean room of pure mechanism (as you seem to be suggesting), even though his original theme may be changed later. Case in point: Knizia’s theme for Through the Desert was conspicuous consumption as well; it had as a working title “Rockefeller: Second to None” with players competing for the best golf course, house, etc. This is specifically interesting because Knizia has often said that TtD remains one of his favorite design because it encapsulates much of his outlook on life, e.g., that there is always more to do than you have time for, so you need to make decisions and focus, or you will fail.

          Other, less known titles also tackle consumerism, stewardship of limited resources, etc., like Das letzte Paradies (The last Paradise), which plays with similar tensions as High Society. Players build hotels on an untouched island paradise. The more hotels they build, the more money they make, however the more hotels are built on the island, the less they are worth, as you destroy the forest and with it the reason people want to come in the first place. (It’s a machine that runs only by destroying itself.) This is combined with a few rules requiring similar out-thinking your fellow polluting capitalists, namely, Vickrey (sealed bid, second price) auctions, and the condition that you can’t win if you have less money than you started with. So everybody can lose (like in Charlie’s hypothetical High Society example).

          Back on topic: Then there are games which Knizia clearly built around the theme, be it a license like Lord of the Rings, or an original fantasy setting that he co-developed with David Farquar (Blue Moon).

          Lastly, I remember Knizia saying numerous times that he starts with a setting more often, not with the mechanics (hard to believe for some, I know). Euphrat und Tigris never had another setting then Mesopotamien civilizations and was apparently inspired by a particular map of the Land of the Two Rivers that Knizia saw at one point.

          TL;DR: Only because Knizia is willing to bow to the wish of the publisher regarding theme doesn’t mean his designs don’t start with a clear theme of their own (which in the early days often meant satirically tackling subjects of consumerism and modern life).

          Liked by 2 people

          • December 12, 2018 at 3:36 am

            Good stuff Michael.


          • December 12, 2018 at 10:22 am

            Interesting stuff! Great to find out a little bit more detail about his process. In many ways it seems a lot more of what you would expect: someone who is more theme centric than it first looks using a variety of different processes.


    • mc
      May 25, 2018 at 6:41 am

      On the other hand, I’ve heard interviews with him talking specifically about theme and how his intent with some games has been to use the mechanisms to distill things down to the bare essentials but still retain the all important theme. I seem to remember an interview he did in particular with Michael Barnes after Barnes had written similar things to what Charlie has espoused above (Master of theme, I think), where he confirmed this way of thinking.

      I don’t think he has any issues with publishers retheming his games and I don’t doubt a lot of his output is mechanism driven. But there are certainly some of his games – and arguably his best ones – where the theme is hugely important, and obviously integral to the design.

      Liked by 1 person

      • May 25, 2018 at 1:34 pm

        Yes, Barnes wrote a fantastic article a few years ago. He also interviewed Reiner a couple of years back. It’s difficult to say whether maybe he was confused, or his process may have changed.


        • mc
          June 10, 2018 at 1:36 am

          Or his process is varied depending on intent.

          This is a late response I know, but I was cleaning up some files and found this article by knizia on how he developed LOTR.

          Click to access LOTR_ROP2004.pdf

          Spoiler – theme came first, and informed a lot!

          Liked by 1 person

  4. June 2, 2018 at 11:36 am

    I love how this game spoke to you, Charlie, even if it was not Reiner actually speaking. Your experience reminds me of the game Railroad, whose purpose is to evoke a feeling.

    By the way, have you written about KD:M? Would love to read your thoughts.


    • June 2, 2018 at 1:38 pm

      Thanks Jesse!

      I have not really written about Kingdom Death but I did own the base game for a time. It’s a wild experience and totally unique. Loved the world building and unflinching vision. I did not have a good grasp over the philosophy behind it, but it felt like there was a lot going on in that bleak world.

      Liked by 1 person

  5. August 7, 2018 at 1:54 pm

    Very hard to add anything to your other commenters here – you clearly attract an informed crowd here. But just wanted to say I thoroughly enjoyed this. I am personally very interested in games that can go beyond their core purpose and explore political or social themes like this – and whether or not Reiner meant to do any of this – the *text* stands.

    I am glad it’s possible to subscribe if I miss your tweets!


  6. Jonathan
    August 24, 2018 at 12:34 pm

    Well that is a much deeper take than I expected for that game, but it totally makes sense. Really enjoyed playing it the couple of times I’ve managed to. Well designed filler with great tension.


    • August 24, 2018 at 6:09 pm

      It’s one of those games that I’d recommend to any game designer. So economical yet effective.


  7. Oma
    November 8, 2018 at 6:47 pm

    The Cleopatra Mega – Jackpots edition of the game has a likely payment of over one-million money.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: