By now, it should be obvious that I love the APBA Golf Master Game. It’s smart, it’s fun, it’s (mostly) realistic, and it lends itself to endless analysis and speculation. What more could you ask for in a board game?
Well, here’s the beginning of my wish list. If APBA ever gets around to updating the game, here are some of the things I’d like to see:
A clear explanation of the Master Game rules. The existing rulebook covers most of what you need to know, but key information is spread out all over the place and can be hard to find. This limitation could be overcome by putting the rules into a searchable PDF, but undoubtedly some people would forgo buying the manual (or the game itself) and just seek out a pirated copy.
The rulebook I wish for could explain some things better (e.g., Approach Shots) and address areas of ambiguity. Over the years, many questions have been posed on APBA – Between the Lines regarding rule interpretations. I’ve seen instances where players with many years of experience disagree on how to do things.
It would be great if APBA would review the most commonly asked rule-related questions on the forum and provide authoritative answers in the next version of the official rulebook. I appreciate that writing a clear, thorough, well-organized rulebook is not an easy job, but doing something along those lines is long overdue.
Until then, see my procedurally-based Master Game Rules for Beginners. It doesn’t cover everything, but it should get new players started.
Course boards that more accurately represent green sizes. I’m not talking about the visual appearance of greens and whether they are to scale relative to the rest of the hole design. I’m referring to the amount of green space in which you can actually have a ball on the green. This effect is exaggerated on courses that have smaller greens to begin with. Because APBA uses gridlines that are 5 yards apart, it can seem like you have more green area to work with than you actually do.
I’m not sure what’s the best way to resolve this issue. APBA isn’t likely to come up with a whole new gridline system for greens (e.g., 3-yard increments). It could, perhaps, reshape the gridlines, so that they cover the appropriate amount of green area. This would mean some wavy lines, similar to what already appears inside some doglegs.
A more realistic wind model. I’m only going to scratch the surface on this, because this topic probably deserves a post of it own. I’ve previously commented on how you can get 60 yards of wind effect on a 107-yard par 3 at Seaside, and that there is no such thing as a calm day on that course. Neither conforms to reality.
More generally speaking, I would like to see APBA’s wind chart be revised, so that the more extreme effects are reduced. There should also probably be fewer instances of variable wind overall. In the current game, wind has a major (and unpredictable) impact on scoring. I’m not saying this should never be the case, but the role it plays now seems to me to be too dominant.
More carded players each season. The current season sets come with 80 carded players. I’m guessing that most APBA Golf fans never play with all of them. I’m an exception in that regard. Typically, I’ll play at least four rounds with each card. I like doing tournament replays. Usually, I have to do them without the full complement of golfers, because cards don’t exist for everyone who played.
I don’t know what the added cost would be to have season sets of, say, 150 or 200 cards, but it would be nice to have that option. I know APBA did something similar with their football season card sets, offering a subset of team players at one price and the full rosters at a higher price.
More realistic shot dispersion, especially with the Driver. Again, this is a topic that probably deserves a post of its own. It just seems to me that most PGA golfers seldom, if ever, miss right or left by 50 yards or more. Yet, it can happen repeatedly in a round of APBA Golf. (Granted, some of that may be due to wind effects.)
In my experience, there are some APBA courses where certain golfers should almost never use their Driver. Of course, you can usually improve your accuracy by opting for a shorter club, provided the tee shot doesn’t have to carry at least 250 yards.
But more to the point, I think today’s PGA golfers, in general, drive the ball differently (distance-wise and laterally) than is reflected in APBA. I don’t know if this would require a change in how the cards are rated or a change to the Driver board but possibly both.
Make the W/I shot boards more like the Approach boards. What I would really love to see is a revision of the W/I shot boards, so that they work more like the Approach boards. In other words, you would target a spot for all W/I shots, and the play result would be relative to that target.
But that’s not practical. For starters, it would likely mean new card ratings. It would also present problems in terms of calculating W/I shot roll. Oh, well. . . a boy can dream!
Hello Scott,
I am really please of this article. 1) The rules. I had problem with some ares of the rules so I think they have to be improved. 2) As I wrote you, few days ago, the putting can surely be improved. (I understand that it is based on a “using affair ” and searching for a more realistic issue) (Here my english words are missing to explain me un a better way). 3) More realistic shot dispersion especially with Driver. I rapidly using the game, found that the 50 yds wild drive were not realistic… (a simple way could be to accept that only once a game or not for certain golfer…!!)
For now, it is my comments… probably more to come.
Thanks, Gilles