|
Mister Sinewave posted:I'm with you on this post but right at the end there I'm getting a little "yeah, BUT..." I don't generally play Hanabi unless at least one person has never played. It's just more fun when there's someone trying to wrap their head around what's going on.
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 18:50
|
|
which I don't find fun.
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 08:53 |
|
|
Mister Sinewave posted:I'm with you on this post but right at the end there I'm getting a little "yeah, BUT..." I kinda ran into the same situation with Hanabi, and I turned me somewhat off the game. When people are berating you for not understanding the convoluted logic of their clues, it's not fun. Hanabi seems to lead to that a lot.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 18:51
|
|
|
Lichtenstein posted:Partially restricted communication sucks, because it invites endless arguments about what is acceptable communication and what is borderline cheating. Including the numerous cases of "someone thought of a clever way of communicating something once and it kinda stuck and should we now pretend humans are incapable of winking with their right eye because it breaks the challenge". This is why I don't like chess. We're just supposed to pretend you can only move one piece at a time? Like human beings only have one hand or something?
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 19:05
|
|
|
Mince Pieface posted:I kinda ran into the same situation with Hanabi, and I turned me somewhat off the game. When people are berating you for not understanding the convoluted logic of their clues, it's not fun. Hanabi seems to lead to that a lot. This sums up my feelings about the game exactly. I find the gameplay interesting but it doesn't work well with anyone I've tried playing it with.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 19:10
|
|
|
Turns out Hanabi is way easier when everyone consistently discards from the same side of their hand...once we started doing that we got consistently high scores. To the point where it almost feels like cheating.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 19:13
|
|
|
Pascallion posted:Turns out Hanabi is way easier when everyone consistently discards from the same side of their hand...once we started doing that we got consistently high scores. To the point where it almost feels like cheating. First time I had to decide what to discard without knowing anything else, I discarded my "oldest" card reasoning that it had the most chance to have been identified if it had been useful. Turns out I remembered incorrectly so I ended up discarding the wrong one, but it did lead to being consistent about card placement / age / discard side like you said. I don't think discarding based on "age" of card is even borderline cheating (not that you said it was) since card placement in your hand is up to the player to manage and they're free to screw it up since they can only see card backs.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 19:26
|
|
|
Mister Sinewave posted:I don't think discarding based on "age" of card is even borderline cheating (not that you said it was) since card placement in your hand is up to the player to manage and they're free to screw it up since they can only see card backs.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 19:34
|
|
|
JohnnySavs posted:Is there a gameplay element to Forbidden Desert that I'm missing? Specifically, once I paid attention to the "run out of sand" loss condition, the game seems next to impossible even on Normal difficulty. Last night we had meteorologist, climber, and archaeologist, and got two parts before losing, and I just tried a solo game with climber, water carrier and explorer and had the same ending. I've played three times. The first time was a solo game to learn the rules before I introduced it. I played with two characters on novice and won fairly easily and even though I made some major mistakes I was never in any trouble. The second game I played with my parents and GF on novice and once again without much trouble. We played again right away on Elite difficulty and that was really hard. I think that because of our first win we were a bit careless about our water and when we used items. We got all four pieces and were two tiles away from the launch pad but our lack of water forced us to huddle into a tunnel and slowed us down too much to catch up to the storm. We lost from running out of sand but it was pretty clear we would have lost from the sandstorm marker reaching the deathzone in a turn anyway. I'm really not sure what we did that was right in the game. Saving dune blasters for huge piles helps with the sand issue, as does digging if you have nothing else better to do. We may have gotten lucky on the storm getting stuck in a corner more often or something.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 19:45
|
|
|
Lottery of Babylon posted:This is why I don't like chess. We're just supposed to pretend you can only move one piece at a time? Like human beings only have one hand or something? I'm not sure whether you were aiming at missing the point, or being unfunny. The example you gave is a very clear, strict rule: you can unambiguously how many pieces were moved and any incorrectness can be pointed out in objective manner. Limited communication, however, is one big grey zone as the limitations - which are the heart of the gameplay - are infinitely bendable, as working around them is the gameplay. Lack of clear distinctions leads to abuse - either innocuous, by reusing old signals, or doing some straight up retarded yet technically legal poo poo, like Jedit's mathematical system from the previous thread. Sustaining the quality of gameplay requires the players to self-police by making judgements what is and what isn't metagaming with little to no basis in the rules themselves. There are games that pull off limited communication, by providing specific, clear limitations, such as time frame (Tragedy Looper), or clearly defined forms of communication (Pictomania). Games such as Hanabi or Battlestar Galactica* rely on participating player goodwill, which in my humble opinion does not work, as within their systems the grey area between legal and not is oftentimes reached even when playing honestly and in good faith. * I'm thinking of the somewhat fuzzy rules regarding skill cards secrecy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 19:47
|
|
|
Fat Samurai posted:I think it's against the spirit of the rules, because you're telling the other players "this is what I'm going to discard unless some of you give me a really good reason not to", but also think that it's very difficult not to establish some kind of common language after repeated plays. Giving information about a single card in my group means "don't discard this or I'll loving kill you.", for example. I can see that. I also completely agree that - just like you said - it's hard not to develop some kind of common language after repeated plays. Hanabi remains a super clever game that is easily worth the money.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 19:52
|
|
|
Yucky yucky Hanabi. I'm glad many of you like it, but it's not for me. Actually I'm not a fan of any of that designer's games, so it's no surprise. I've actually stopped buying them. In other news, we played Orleans again yesterday and I like this game more each time I play it. Some strategy, some tactics, some randomness all within 90 minutes. Bliss.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 19:56
|
|
|
I also played Pandemic: Contagion twice recently. You control a disease trying to kill the entire world. The components are cool, I love the little petri dishes. The game seems a little unbalanced in that as far as I can tell there's an objectively best thing to do in your first few turns. There are three stats your disease has: Incubation, Infection and Resistance. Of these three, Incubation you need immediately, Infection you should max out after increasing your incubation and Resistance you shouldn't give a gently caress about. I kind of want to play around a little bit to figure out if there are a few viable strategies at the start or just one, but I won both times I played and the first time I had 14 more points than the score mat can count. To the game's credit, the decisions become much more interesting in the second half.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 19:58
|
|
|
It's been a while, but I remember Spartacus being recommended in the previous thread. What's the general opinion on it, now that's it been out for a while? Also, is the expansion worth picking up? How well does it play with 5 or 6?
Hannibal Rex fucked around with this message at 21:03 on Dec 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 21:00
|
|
|
Hannibal Rex posted:It's been a while, but I remember Spartacus being recommended in the previous thread. What's the general opinion on it, now that's it been out for a while? Also, is the expansion worth picking up? How well does it play with 5 or 6? The combat is a dice-fest, but there's some enjoyment in bidding, I guess. I've only played with the shorter scenarios, I can't imagine playing a full game though, it would be interminable.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 21:23
|
|
|
As a counterpoint, I'll advocate for Spartacus. Not because it's a good game, but because it is an entertaining game with enough mechanisms to feel like you've actually done something with your time. It is very swingy, it's a dice fest and it can be over long (play the long game at your peril), but it absolutely and totally nails the narrative of the show. Your ludus will have swings of fate. You'll have gladiators that you adore for hours, then sell at the drop of a hat when the opportunity arises. You'll make deals, you'll stab backs and you'll act like a scheming prick. Generally, I have a low tolerance for games that have too much randomness, but this one ties it all together with a deft hand and puts a lot of game in the box. It's a guilty pleasure, but, like Risk Legacy, does enough to mitigate the swingy mechanisms to make an interesting and entertaining game. It's not a game to play with super grognardy types, but it is hugely entertaining.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 22:25
|
|
|
So I got some belated xmas stuff and I may be one of you. Besides Space Alert/Diplomacy/Games of Thrones 2nd Edition which were had on the day: Coup Avalon Lords of Waterdeep Tichu Love Letter Wits & Wagers Ca$h and Guns (2nd Ed) Dominion Feverishly trying to figure out play order -- we're already in love with Space Alert obviously so that will get a round or two. I'd love to try Game of Thrones tomorrow because we'll have a big group together -- but they all look like a blast. e: Not that this won't keep us occupied for a good long while, but I've been checking out boardgamegeek and looking for the next impulse purchase and Sheriff of Nottingham/K2 look like a lot of fun. Although with how much we've enjoyed Space Alert, Dungeon Lords or Galaxy Trucker may be in order (or maybe another co-op game like Flashpoint/Mice & Mystics/Forbidden Desert). I guess we're leaning towards variety and theme right now (although maybe eventually we'll get into some more hardcore stuff like Terra Mystica). T-Bone fucked around with this message at 23:21 on Dec 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 23:03
|
|
|
Let's talk psychology in rules. Chess, which is a terrible strawman for the argument but an amazing example for this post, has permissive rules. As players, your interactions outside the game are unrestricted, and each rule is a clear instruction of how you can interact with the game's components. "You are permitted to move 1 piece on your turn" is a very clear distinction that allows for no arguments and no grey area where you constantly wonder if you are cheating or not. Hanabi is a game with restrictive rules. As players, the game's state is irregular and contains you, and the rules dictate things that you cannot do as people independent of the components. "You cannot give away useful information" with a guide on how to appropriate adjust that for your group's tolerance level is not at all a clear distinction, and most of the tension comes from players being unsure whether or not they are accidentally cheating. Restrictive rules are more frustrating than permissive rules off the bat, but Hanabi takes it further. That last bit, "most of the tension comes from players being unsure whether or not they are accidentally cheating" describes half the Fantasy Flight catalogue that gets derided for having a poo poo rulebook. "We won at Arkham Horror but it turns out we were moving through monsters," etc. In other games, rules so unclear that their badness dominates any given play usually qualifies them as bad games, no questions asked. Hanabi is a gimmick revolving around this horrible mechanism, so people give it a pass as some sort of weird social experiment just because it tried. Ultimately, if Hanabi had more to it as a game, I'd forgive it. If you play by the letter of the rules, no winky-wink poo poo or stretching what counts as no communication, the game revolves entirely around luck. You might have to make a blind discard, or you simply won't draw the cards in an order that lets you complete a 5-point stack. Dixit is a game that uses restricted communication in a permissive, flexible, and positive-feeling way that allows players to be creative and also has incredibly clear indicators as to what counts as an appropriately obscured level of information (send a message to exactly 1 player at the table at a time, that player should be the one with the lowest score, and the message contents should not be easily intercepted by another card). It's less luck-based, less frustrating, and spawns fewer arguments. Even better, if you gently caress up at Dixit, you simply don't gain points for the round, whereas loving up at Hanabi wins games and nobody feels okay about it. The closest games I can compare to Hanabi, with intentionally designed restrictive rules, are Tragedy Looper and Pandemic. Tragedy Looper is incredibly clear on what is allowed, and thus the concept of accidental cheating is never considered. Pandemic is not, and thus it's considered one of the worst co-ops due to rampant Quarterbacking problems when people ignore or bypass the communication rules and a huge luck overhead when played as intended.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 23:22
|
|
|
T-Bone posted:Feverishly trying to figure out play order -- we're already in love with Space Alert obviously so that will get a round or two. I'd love to try Game of Thrones tomorrow because we'll have a big group together -- but they all look like a blast. gently caress theme. Play Dominion. You're welcome.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 23:25
|
|
|
Broken Loose posted:The closest games I can compare to Hanabi, with intentionally designed restrictive rules, are Tragedy Looper and Pandemic. Tragedy Looper is incredibly clear on what is allowed, and thus the concept of accidental cheating is never considered. Pandemic is not, and thus it's considered one of the worst co-ops due to rampant Quarterbacking problems when people ignore or bypass the communication rules and a huge luck overhead when played as intended. Pandemic isn't an example. The communication rules are gone in the newest edition. Matt Leacock realized they were a crap patch over the quarterbacking problem. Even then, though, the Pandemic rules were extremely clear cut, if stupid: "You may not show your cards to another player." Period, end rules. Everything else is allowed, up to and including reading off every card you're currently holding.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 23:32
|
|
|
Perhaps the biggest issue with Hanabi is that there's no opponent with a vested interest in calling you on your poo poo if you're wink-wink-nudge-nudging your way around the rules the way there is in, say, contract bridge. It can only be self-enforced, and the only motivation to do so is your own sense of fair play. A digital PBEM version could be pretty nice, as it would remove all ambiguity about what communication is allowed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 23:32
|
|
|
Gutter Owl posted:Pandemic isn't an example. The communication rules are gone in the newest edition. Matt Leacock realized they were a crap patch over the quarterbacking problem. But that's very related to the issue at hand. There have been many points where people asked, "Can I just tell you what I have?" and many groups eventually dropped the no show rule because you were allowed to communicate your cards to other players with 100% clarity anyway so why restrict it arbitrarily?
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 23:36
|
|
|
EDIT: Looks like everything's done so disregard this post. And my sincere apologies to that one guy who is either upset that I'm giving stuff away or that I don't like Kemet. Or both. I dunno. Alright, it's time for the annual purge of the games that don't get played often enough. I could drop these off at half price books but I hate doing that when things can go out of print and I'd rather have them to go to folks who will use them. I also once threw away a copy of Avalon Hill's Civ and Advanced Civ (later rebuilt from scratch because god drat) and as such am now pathologically unable to throw away a board game. I'm trying to get rid of the following: They're all decent to good games (except Kemet, I stand by disliking that one even if everyone else loves it), but they just don't seem to come out often enough to justify keeping them around. They all suffer from being almost as popular as something else my group is into. Here's my system: If you want a game, post and claim it. My email address is my username at yahoo, so email me an address for shipping and I will mail it out to you. One game per poster. Go ahead and post a second request if you'd like and if no one else wants it, I'll throw that in too. Once I get everything sent out and you get a game, buy me a 5-10 dollar amazon gift card to cover shipping and send it to my email address. Edit: Should probably mention I'm in the US and can only really ship within the States. If there's a question, I can look into how much shipping is elsewhere but I suspect probably too much. Ohthehugemanatee fucked around with this message at 01:26 on Dec 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 23:58
|
|
|
I want Petz E: email sent. Forgot to put a closing on it, so I'll just say thank you for the opportunity. Dr. Lunchables fucked around with this message at 00:05 on Dec 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 00:00
|
|
|
Lord Frisk posted:I want Petz If this falls through for whatever reason, or someone else is looking to sell it, I also want Petz
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 00:02
|
|
|
I'll take Kemet
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 00:02
|
|
|
Nations
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 00:04
|
|
|
Ohthehugemanatee posted:Netrunner I'd love to get this for one of my friends, I need other people to play this game with me.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 00:06
|
|
|
I've never played Hanabi and thanks to this thread I never want to. It sounds like it can only go two ways: a cakewalk because the group rampantly cheats, or a non-stop rules lawyer fest over behavioral minutiae. Either way it sounds stupid as hell. Doubly so because the only other game I can think of to compare that rule to would be Battlestar Galactica's similar dumb rule about discussing crisis contributions.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 00:11
|
|
|
Ohthehugemanatee posted:Alright, it's time for the annual purge of the games that don't get played often enough. I could drop these off at half price books but I hate doing that when things can go out of print and I'd rather have them to go to folks who will use them. I also once threw away a copy of Avalon Hill's Civ and Advanced Civ (later rebuilt from scratch because god drat) and as such am now pathologically unable to throw away a board game. Memoir 44
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 00:11
|
|
|
Ohthehugemanatee posted:Alright, it's time for the annual purge of the games that don't get played often enough. I could drop these off at half price books but I hate doing that when things can go out of print and I'd rather have them to go to folks who will use them. I also once threw away a copy of Avalon Hill's Civ and Advanced Civ (later rebuilt from scratch because god drat) and as such am now pathologically unable to throw away a board game. I'll do Summoner Wars!
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 00:16
|
|
|
What a beautiful alignment of poor taste and an excess of money. Enjoy your good nearly-free games, amerigoons!
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 00:22
|
|
|
I was thinking of setting aside my card-based-game prejudice to try Pathfinder since I've heard vague good things and I like trying new games. I'm always up for trying games that can be played solo as well. I was unprepared for the price tag though. Too high for an impulse buy, and I thought cards were supposed to be the cheap component right along with six-sided dice. Well, I have plenty of games waiting to have their plastic cracked already anyway, sour grapes 4 lyfe 
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 00:34
|
|
|
Chomp8645 posted:I've never played Hanabi and thanks to this thread I never want to. It sounds like it can only go two ways: a cakewalk because the group rampantly cheats, or a non-stop rules lawyer fest over behavioral minutiae. Either way it sounds stupid as hell. Doubly so because the only other game I can think of to compare that rule to would be Battlestar Galactica's similar dumb rule about discussing crisis contributions. It's actually a great and cool game if you don't play with assholes who go "I'm not giving you any information I'm just coincidentally giving you a thumbs-up whenever your hand moves near the card you should play come on that's fair are you going to pretend human beings are physically incapable of giving thumbs ups????" In my experience cool people are more common in real life and "Show me the rules paragraph where it forbids blinking in morse code!" types are more common on forums. Somehow Bridge manages to get played all over the place by all sorts of people even though communications rules during its bidding are basically the same as the communication rules in Hanabi. Wiggling your left eyebrow to say you have a lot of spades is cheating; making weird bids according to a convention is not cheating. Broken Loose posted:Ultimately, if Hanabi had more to it as a game, I'd forgive it. If you play by the letter of the rules, no winky-wink poo poo or stretching what counts as no communication, the game revolves entirely around luck. I disagree, there are a lot of clever plays you can do within the constraints of the rules that let you give out more information than you normally could with one clue. I've seen A point to a single card in C's hand and say "This is your 3" as the first move of the game, as an indication (which C picked up on despite no established convention) that the other three cards in her hand were all 1's; this gives more info than "These three cards are your 1's" because it also establishes the rank of the fourth card. Later in the game, B pointed to the green 4 in D's hand and said "This is your 4", even though only the green 2 had been played. This indicated to C that the 3 sitting in her hand was green and needed to be played. Lottery of Babylon fucked around with this message at 00:49 on Dec 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 00:37
|
|
|
I've certainly played with people who go "So you told me this was blue so you want me to...discard it? Right? Play it? Discard it? Discard it." like, every turn.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 00:43
|
|
|
Is there a list of exact cards in each Galaxy Trucker expansion? There's a guy we play with who absolutely hates one of them and bitches and moans that my anniversary deck is all mixed together. So I'd like to be able to have the cards separated by game in the box
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 00:56
|
|
|
As far as I recall, the first expansion only introduced a handful of event cards (like, 3 per stage), which you should be able to look up in the manual. The second expansion introduced a similarly-sized number of event cards, plus the intruder cards. And the round 4 cards, of course. I tend to play with the new events even when not using the components introduced in that expansion - the only cards you really need to take out are the intruder cards if you're not using the second set of expansion tiles, and the round 3 card that adds two round 4 cards. You could probably even include that last one if you were willing to separate out the round 4 deck enough to have intruders vs. not intruders.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 01:03
|
|
|
Dr. VooDoo posted:Is there a list of exact cards in each Galaxy Trucker expansion? There's a guy we play with who absolutely hates one of them and bitches and moans that my anniversary deck is all mixed together. So I'd like to be able to have the cards separated by game in the box Most of the time all cards from the same deck are from the same set. The first big expansion added two cards to each of decks I, II, and III: I: Star Depot, Junkyard, II: Bureaucracy, Junkyard III: Robosmokeys, Space Billiards The second big expansion added one Hazardous Sector and three Intruders to each of decks I, II, and III. The second big expansion added two Rough Roads, Parasites and Overstaying Their Welcome, that dealt with the new intruder mechanics. In all other cases, cards from the same deck are from the same set. There's very little mixing together to be done except for the ship component tiles. e: The second big expansion also added Telepathic Guru to the set of cyan alien professions, but that's not exactly a "deck". Lottery of Babylon fucked around with this message at 01:49 on Dec 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 01:08
|
|
|
Chomp8645 posted:I've never played Hanabi and thanks to this thread I never want to. It sounds like it can only go two ways: a cakewalk because the group rampantly cheats, or a non-stop rules lawyer fest over behavioral minutiae. Either way it sounds stupid as hell. Doubly so because the only other game I can think of to compare that rule to would be Battlestar Galactica's similar dumb rule about discussing crisis contributions. I can obliterate my girlfriend in Dominant Species or in 2 player war games but I've never seen her more frustrated than me not understanding her cryptic clues in Hanabi,
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 02:19
|
|
|
Ohthehugemanatee posted:EDIT: Looks like everything's done so disregard this post. And my sincere apologies to that one guy who is either upset that I'm giving stuff away or that I don't like Kemet. Or both. I dunno. Nice gesture, but I kind of want to hate you since I wanted like three of those 
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 02:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 08:53 |
|
|
Aston posted:I've certainly played [Hanabi] with people who go "So you told me this was blue so you want me to...discard it? Right? Play it? Discard it? Discard it." It seems to me that this is the issue from people who have had bad experiences/don't enjoy Hanabi; they're playing with people who are inclined to bring out the faults in the rules, which I would agree, really would sap the enjoyment out of the game and make one not want to play it... with those people. I've played the game dozens of times with a variety of people I game with regularly and have never encountered any of this wink-wink-nudge-nudge behavior that some seem to think is common place when playing the game. Basically, while what people are saying about the rules requiring some discipline to adhere to (and a willingness to accept that accidental tells are going to happen) certainly has merit, it sounds like the bigger issue is the attitude of the people they're playing with, rather than issues with the game its self.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 02:50
|
|
