[nimih]

This was my staunch opinion for a long time, but I've actually come around to the idea that many games are improved by having some degree of hidden information which is in-theory trackable by players, since it allows a certain sort of player to take their turn much more rapidly (i.e. it mitigates "analysis paralysis"). I don't think it's true for every game, obviously, (IMO it would be a poor house rule to make in 1830, for instance), but I've become a lot more willing to trust designers' decisions on what information should be public vs. hidden as my taste in board games has developed over time.

(For the record, I have no opinion on the value of hidden vs public information as a design decision in Catan.)

[vanderZwan]

I wonder how much you would enjoy (or hate) Bruno Faidutti's games, they are all about hidden information, scheming and bluffing.

"Maskerade" especially, because there you often don't even know for certain which character you are yourself. Everyone is just pretending, scheming and bluffing the time. Which I suppose really captures the idea of scheaming at Renaissance courts.

[nimih]

I've actually played a lot of Citadels (which I think is great fun these days, although I'll admit I disliked it when I first played it many years ago). I'll have to give Mascarade a shot, it looks like it would be engaging in the same sort of way.