|
About a year after getting into modern board games I've noticed that I tend to enjoy games which play relatively fast and are built around simple mechanics. The reason behind this is a purely pragmatic one. Even though I do appreciate long and complex games, it's always a daunting task to explain the rules in detail for 30+ minutes and then play for two or three hours straight. The biggest problem with this is that usually the first game is just a warm-up where everybody gets the feel of the game. But, because everybody I know is either working or studying full-time, it may take months before our next game. So, I appreciate games which I can explain quickly, which offer an exciting experience on the first try and which last from 30 to 60 minutes. Now, my birthday is dangerously approaching and I'd thought I could add another game to my collection, but I'm not sure what I'd want to get. The games I own are: Chaos in the Old World (+ The Horned Rat Expansion) Claustrophobia (I don't really like this one, probably going to sell it) Dungeon Lords Dungeon Petz Fairytale Galaxy Trucker Summoner Wars Master Set (+ Fallen Kingdom and Filth decks) Of these, Galaxy Trucker, Summoner Wars and Fairytale get the most play-time because they're fast and quite easy to explain. On the other hand, while I do love the other Vlaada games and CitOW, some of the players in our group find especially the Dungeon games too daunting and hard for them to grasp. One of the more frequent players at our table said that while she does understand what she should be doing in Dungeon Lords, she has this constant feeling of anxiety because the game is more about mitigating damage rather than excelling over others. I've been thinking about getting Small World, which I actually intended to buy as my first board game but got dissuaded into buying CitOW instead. I've seen it played both on Tabletop and Watch It Played and it looks like a fun game with enough strategic depth but simple enough rules. The only thing that worries me is the fixed board, but I believe the randomized mixes of banner abilities and racial traits make it a novel experience every time. Other games that have piqued my interest are Mundus Novus and Libertalia, which I read or heard about on SU&SD. So, any other recommendations for fast(ish), rules light games with strategic depth that shine with three to four players? PS. I love Dominion and it would be the perfect game for me, but two of my friends already have it with most if not all the expansions, so there's no incentive for me to buy it.
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2013 18:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 17:00 |
|
|
Tigris and Euphrates. Although it can take some time to get used to the rules, they are relatively easy and there is remarkable strategic depth. I usually clock Ames at around 1 hour and a half. It can be difficult to each the game but once you grasp the fundamentals the game is cry playable., although can suffer from ap and also from people getting annoyed due to the direct conflict.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2013 18:56
|
|
|
Tekopo posted:There are some awful, awful people on bgg and it makes me despair for the hobby. Who the hell cares which game is number 1 on some spurious, entirely subjective ranking, even if it is derived from many separate votes. Everyone knows that objectively the best game is napoleon's triumph. This is where I'd like to remind everyone that Eclipse hit the top 25 before it was in stores or available for mass purchase. Other classic examples of stupidity on the BGG rankings are: My Little Pony being ranked #1 on the Wargames list, and Space Hulk being voted to the top of the list in hopes of getting a reprint, then getting voted to the bottom of the rankings after it was announced there would be no reprint.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2013 19:03
|
|
|
PaybackJack posted:This is where I'd like to remind everyone that Eclipse hit the top 25 before it was in stores or available for mass purchase. The My Little Pony thing must have been a bug or something, because I've always seen Twilight Struggle as the #1 spot in the Wargames list. The whole "vote a game before it has been released" is ridiculously stupid though. I highly doubt that many BGG users go to Essen every year. Edit - VVVVVVV - Very true. I try not to read much of anything that people actually post in the forums on BGG because half the time it's "Oh my god that girl playing Eclipse is hot, where do you find the nerd girls?" Soma Soma Soma fucked around with this message at 19:14 on Jan 5, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2013 19:09
|
|
|
Soma Soma Soma posted:The worst part of BGG is when you dive into some of the specialized lists, like "Most Customizable Game" where Netrunner is somehow above Magic: The Gathering. This is incorrect. The worst part of BGG is when they talk about something other than games. This counts double if said something involves women. These Loving Eyes posted:So, I appreciate games which I can explain quickly, which offer an exciting experience on the first try and which last from 30 to 60 minutes. Now, my birthday is dangerously approaching and I'd thought I could add another game to my collection, but I'm not sure what I'd want to get. I'll vouch for Small World and Libertalia, although I haven't played much of the former and only one game of the latter. They are both pretty accessible, though, although I can't gauge how "deep" they are. Libertalia is probably the heavier of the games, despite having less components to think about. You might also want to look into Smash Up, which is also pretty simple, probably on Small World's scale. If the Dungeon games are daunting, Stone Age and Lords of Waterdeep are two entry level worker placement games. Both have a pretty substantial luck component to them, with Stone Age probably having more since you roll for resources. They are not the deepest games, but I imagine they are less anxiety prone than Dungeon Petz. You can always go straight to Caylus though, but that first game is going to be harsh.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2013 19:10
|
|
|
Along with Tigris and Euphrates, check out some of the older German games that focused on accessibility and quick play time. Games like RA, El Grande, Tikal, La Citta, In the Shadow of the Emperor and Attika are the reason the hobby took off, and there's a reason for that. Definitely look at Tigris and Euphrates though, it's easily the best German style game.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2013 19:14
|
|
|
GrandpaPants posted:I played my first game of The Resistance: Avalon, and I have to say that I really like it a lot more than base The Resistance. I really didn't like the deck of cards, and using the Lady of the Lake is essentially the most important of these but, importantly, with known regularity. It makes for a pretty interesting game, although I would probably ditch the lady with lower number of players, since outing an evil dude (this, unfortunately, doesn't glide off the tongue as well as "spy") when there are only 2 in the game is pretty crippling to the evil team. You can use the plot cards from the resistance with Avalon too if you don't mind mixing themes. You can proxy the leader card from the resistance as excalibur for that promo variant. You can also put bits of paper in the sleves of two cards for the lancelot variant. Sleve the cards straight away as they have no white borders. Also consider protecting the tokens somehow. Mine have worn down graphics after only 2 plays from people rubbing them accross the tables. I was told nail varnish is good for this. Yeah the funnest character card to include is Oberon. I'll let you all work out why.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2013 19:36
|
|
|
Had a question about Castles of Burgundy: Maybe I'm just missing it in the rule book, but how are the six sided tiles added to the black depot? Also, are the regular spots for the other six sided tiles considered the depot? Meaning, would I use my action to take from one of those spots? EDIT: Hurp it was staring me right in the face. Nevermind Teh Madd Hatter fucked around with this message at 19:51 on Jan 5, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2013 19:37
|
|
|
These Loving Eyes posted:
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2013 19:39
|
|
|
Soma Soma Soma posted:The worst part of BGG is when you dive into some of the specialized lists, like "Most Customizable Game" where Netrunner is somehow above Magic: The Gathering. The stated design objective of Netrunner was "being actually fun to play" after Richard Garfield realized that once you'd built your deck in Magic the game basically played itself, so I'm not sure what you're getting at.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2013 19:54
|
|
|
Soma Soma Soma posted:The My Little Pony thing must have been a bug or something, because I've always seen Twilight Struggle as the #1 spot in the Wargames list. Nope, it wasn't a bug. The guy who started it proposed it as a "joke" then everyone jumped on board for some reason or another but if you researched that guy a little, it turned out the guy was a total bronie. And no way Eclipse deserves being #5.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2013 20:06
|
|
|
Poopy Palpy posted:The stated design objective of Netrunner was "being actually fun to play" after Richard Garfield realized that once you'd built your deck in Magic the game basically played itself, so I'm not sure what you're getting at. I'm getting at the fact that Magic the Gathering has many different types of formats that include thousands of cards to utilize in deck building and strategy. If you want to go by the amount of customization a player has, Magic is probably going to beat out almost any other card game ever made. It has nothing to do with how fun one game is compared to the other, because I personally think that Netrunner is quite a bit more fun right now than Standard or Draft M:tG. But to say that Netrunner has more customization is a bit silly, especially when you take into account the deck building restrictions and the very small pool of cards to currently pick from. Edit - After taking another look at BGG I guess the "specific" lists like "Customizable" only take into account the type of game. I thought it was an actual rating of how much a player could customize the game itself, not which customizable games are "better" than others. Oh well. The point is that BGG rankings are stupid. Even the original Netrunner has a higher rank than Magic, which is pretty stupid. Soma Soma Soma fucked around with this message at 20:12 on Jan 5, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2013 20:07
|
|
|
Don't you be talking poo poo about classic Netrunner. It got remade despite being an IP dead-end for a reason. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2013 20:20
|
|
|
Lorini posted:Yup, which is why over the years I've collected a nice set of Geek Buddies who let me know the games I would be interested in. There's no way in hell that I'd suggest Twilight Struggle as being the best the hobby can offer. It's a good solid game, but not deserving of some basically hacked #1 rating. There is no question Twilight Struggle is better than eurobabby garbage like Agricola or Puerto Rico though. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2013 20:35
|
|
|
Jedit posted:Before I report an app bug, can anyone else read the list nested in the spoiler? There's a weird gradient thing when putting spoilers next to each other; it's been noted in the state of the forums thread, so it'll probably be fixed. Eventually. Relevant to the thread: how often do y'all get to play the games you've amassed? My wife and I only get to break out the "interesting" board games (as I term them) maybe once or twice a month, if we get together with the right friends. And trying to get enough friends together to play while also dealing with our kid is difficult. How do other people do it?
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2013 20:47
|
|
|
I think you're all reading a bit too much into the rating. It's not about some objective criteria of goodness or superiority, it's about what you want to play. Chess and Go are great games. Anyone who disagrees with this is a big dumb-dumbhead. I rarely want to play them though. That's a 5 or 6. And Magic? I never actually want to play that. I'd have to be convinced, and it'd take some serious convincing. That's a 4 at best.The X-Wing miniatures game, however, is something I'll usually suggest. That makes it at least an 8. But nobody thinks that X-Wing miniatures is a better game than Chess or Go. e: Also keep in mind that the way the ratings are worded skews the lists towards games that people rarely play. Why would everyone always want to play Twilight Struggle or Twilight Imperium? Because they never get to play those games, because for most folks it's kind of rare to get exactly one hypernerd or a handful of hypernerds that are willing to play a single game for 8 hours. So people that played once and like it are basically always wanting to play, suggesting it to others (even though they know they'll get shot down), etc. But games that are short and easy to learn and you can convince your normal friends to play? Those get played all the time, so you're rarely specifically thinking "Man, I want to play that game I just played two days ago." As such, the rating should top out around 8 ("Very good game. I like to play. Probably I'll suggest it and will never turn down a game."). Now, as folks mentioned a lot of people don't actually use the ratings system correctly and vote games before they've played, or vote 1 ("Not actually a game") on games that they burn out on or that they get into stupid internet pissing matches over. I mostly wanted to point out that the BGG ratings by design aren't ratings of games - they're a report on what BGG users want to play. Achmed Jones fucked around with this message at 21:04 on Jan 5, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2013 20:57
|
|
|
Yeah, I think the BGG ratings are useful if you understand how they work. My biggest rule of thumb is to never buy a game rated under 7.0 unless I'm absolutely positive its worth it and anything under 7.6 is a bit of a risk. This isn't to say that there aren't higher rated games that are totally undeserving of their rating and would be a bad idea to buy, but when I see a random euro in my local games store the first thing I do is look up the BGG rating as there are few games under 7.0 that are worth buying over ones that rate more highly, in my experience.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2013 22:02
|
|
|
Blamestorm posted:Yeah, I think the BGG ratings are useful if you understand how they work. My biggest rule of thumb is to never buy a game rated under 7.0 unless I'm absolutely positive its worth it and anything under 7.6 is a bit of a risk. This isn't to say that there aren't higher rated games that are totally undeserving of their rating and would be a bad idea to buy, but when I see a random euro in my local games store the first thing I do is look up the BGG rating as there are few games under 7.0 that are worth buying over ones that rate more highly, in my experience. I follow this as except the game has to have a 7.00 or above among my geek buddies. I consider/buy many games that are less than 7 by general BGG rating. Dutch Golden Age for example has been a big hit with our group. Geek buddies gave it a 7.5 so I got it. If you have trustworthy Geek buddies then you don't care about all the crap people do with the ratings. I do have to make adjustments though. One Buddy only rates games between 5.0 and 5.9. Another buddy won't rate a game over a 9 no matter what. Another won't rate one under a 7. I know their ideosynchrncies so it's all good.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2013 22:45
|
|
|
Adding an item to my bucketlist: Post on Consimworld asking them to add ratings for each game folder.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2013 23:09
|
|
|
Poopy Palpy posted:The stated design objective of Netrunner was "being actually fun to play" after Richard Garfield realized that once you'd built your deck in Magic the game basically played itself, so I'm not sure what you're getting at. What does this even mean? Seriously, I don't get it and I don't think there is anything to get.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2013 23:15
|
|
|
I buy nothing below 6.0. I buy below 7.0 if the price is right. There was a glut of Rio grande games in cheap booksellers in the UK that fit the 6.0 to 7.0 range. It just adds some variety. There are some of the highly rated games in the chart which I have played and just don't like enough or at all. Eclipse and Agricola for instance.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2013 23:36
|
|
|
Another thing to consider is that it doesn't matter what the score is if you can't get the group to play it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2013 23:46
|
|
|
XyrlocShammypants posted:What does this even mean? Seriously, I don't get it and I don't think there is anything to get. Taken from an Interview with Garfield by FFG: "Richard Garfield posted:With what part of the original game were you most pleased, and how do you feel that Android: Netrunner has handled that aspect? This is probably what he was referring to. Source: http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_news.asp?eidn=3417
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2013 23:46
|
|
|
XyrlocShammypants posted:What does this even mean? Seriously, I don't get it and I don't think there is anything to get. I don't play Magic so I don't know if it's true or not, but the statement seems pretty clear (and akin to some criticism of Dominion): once you have decided what to put in your deck and started playing, few meaningful decisions remain. You're just executing the algorithm you built before the game started. I think this is a tough charge to level at Netrunner because there's a fair amount of hidden information, bluffing, and mind games.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2013 23:47
|
|
|
I will agree that Netrunner has more bluffing and hidden information than Magic, but dumbing down a game of competitive, tournament level Magic to "the cards play themselves" is disgustingly inaccurate. I'm really amazed that Garfield even said that. I guess maybe all he plays is Red Deck Wins, because Control and Tempo decks both take quite a bit of skill to utilize and you definitely need to be able to read your opponent and try to understand what his plan is. Plus, both games still suffer from card draw luck. I've played games of Netrunner where I had to mulligan as Corp and ended up with a hand with multiple agendas and zero ice. At that point the game is just as stupid as playing Magic and being mana screwed or flooded.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2013 00:11
|
|
|
I'm surprised he said that as well. A blue strong counter MtG deck is total bluffing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2013 00:30
|
|
|
There are few things as powerful in Magic as having a card in your hand and two untapped Islands.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2013 00:48
|
|
|
Soma Soma Soma posted:I will agree that Netrunner has more bluffing and hidden information than Magic, but dumbing down a game of competitive, tournament level Magic to "the cards play themselves" is disgustingly inaccurate. I'm really amazed that Garfield even said that. I guess maybe all he plays is Red Deck Wins, because Control and Tempo decks both take quite a bit of skill to utilize and you definitely need to be able to read your opponent and try to understand what his plan is. Yea, Garfield sounds so wrong there it's kind of sad. In my opinion, he's just trying to pump up his new game and earn some cash because right now, the exact opposite of what he said is true. Most runner decks are pretty darn straightforward. Most Corps are the same thing. In a way, playing cards face down is basically the same thing as playing cards from your hand in Magic. The runner lacks some information (what is the face down card) but also gains information (it's likely Ice) and the Corps essentially cast Ice and other effects as "instants" or "interrupts" to your opponents actions. I mean, if you have 2 Ice and you are playing against a certain runner, you know where you have to place your Ice at the start of the game. You often don't even have a choice the first few turns. It's sad to say but Netrunner is basically Magic:Lite. Shammypants fucked around with this message at 01:04 on Jan 6, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2013 00:58
|
|
|
I'd beg to differ on the Magic:Lite comment, but we should probably take this back to the A:NR thread. The amount of options and tactical decisions you have available to you in NR just because of the structure of your turn (here is the poo poo you can do, and you have limited actions. GO!) dwarfs MTG (draw a card. play a land. can I afford to cast this beastie? should I cast this spell? end turn.) Of course I'm simplifying, but I believe Richard was simplifying as well. Most people who play magic love swinging with big rear end creatures, and that is a very simple play style. Compare that to the decision making and bluffing you are forced to do even with 2 lovely ANR players. I believe that was the point he was making, and it seems evident by his last line of the paragraph.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2013 01:09
|
|
|
Carteret posted:I'd beg to differ on the Magic:Lite comment, but we should probably take this back to the A:NR thread. The amount of options and tactical decisions you have available to you in NR just because of the structure of your turn (here is the poo poo you can do, and you have limited actions. GO!) dwarfs MTG (draw a card. play a land. can I afford to cast this beastie? should I cast this spell? end turn.) Of course I'm simplifying, but I believe Richard was simplifying as well. Most people who play magic love swinging with big rear end creatures, and that is a very simple play style. Compare that to the decision making and bluffing you are forced to do even with 2 lovely ANR players. I believe that was the point he was making, and it seems evident by his last line of the paragraph. What you just said is exactly Android: Netrunner. Instead you have to change like 3 words (and there is such a limited card pool and number of card mechanisms that the game is fairly simplistic right now). "Draw a card, get a credit, can I afford this ICE? should I play this Agenda? end turn." For the runner it's much the same thing, except there is only one "Creature" and it's the Runner himself.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2013 01:18
|
|
|
XyrlocShammypants posted:What you just said is exactly Android: Netrunner. Instead you have to change like 3 words (and there is such a limited card pool and number of card mechanisms that the game is fairly simplistic right now). "Draw a card, get a credit, can I afford this ICE? should I play this Agenda? end turn." For the runner it's much the same thing, except there is only one "Creature" and it's the Runner himself.  (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2013 01:21
|
|
|
Yeah dude I have no idea what game you are playing but clearly it's not the same Android: Netrunner I am playing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2013 01:25
|
|
|
I found all my old 90s version of Netrunner (CCG!), about 400 cards or so. How different is the new one from it? I liked it, but it never really compelled me more than Magic.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2013 01:28
|
|
|
different enough to not be compatible. They revamped Trace, changed some terminology, and introduced factions and influence for flavor/deckbuilding.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2013 01:31
|
|
|
Pander posted:I found all my old 90s version of Netrunner (CCG!), about 400 cards or so. How different is the new one from it? I liked it, but it never really compelled me more than Magic. Different enough that that cards are not compatible, but similar enough that everyone I have talked to that played the old one likes the new one and is nostalgic about certain cards that are basically renamed reprints.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2013 01:31
|
|
|
Dominion posted:Yeah dude I have no idea what game you are playing but clearly it's not the same Android: Netrunner I am playing. So you also believe it's more complex than Magic?
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2013 01:38
|
|
|
XyrlocShammypants posted:So you also believe it's more complex than Magic? You're equating complexity with the balance of making decisions in game vs during the crafting process. That's kinda stupid.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2013 01:44
|
|
|
Chomp8645 posted:You're equating complexity with the balance of making decisions in game vs during the crafting process. That's kinda stupid. Where are you getting this from?
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2013 01:49
|
|
|
XyrlocShammypants posted:So you also believe it's more complex than Magic? I didn't say that. It's not more customizable than magic, certainly, but thats comparing a ten year old game with thousands of cards to a 5 month old game with a couple hundred. I do think there are more meaningful decisions to be made DURING the game in Netrunner as opposed to in Magic though. And the bluffing aspect, while present in some Magic decks, is more centrally important to more Netrunner decks than in Magic. And the games are so dissimilar that saying Netrunner is magic lite is just baffling. They use cards and each player builds a deck before play, that is about the only similarity.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2013 01:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 17:00 |
|
|
You stated that the decision making in both games is similar, someone else objected, and you responded by asking if that means Netrunner is more complex. That seams like equating overall complexity with decision making mechanics to me.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2013 01:53
|
|