|
McNerd posted:I am a huge fan of Dominion and it may well be the better game, but I can list a lot of things Temporum does better: Yeah comparing Dominion in its current state to Temporum in its current state is probably unfair. I think base Temporum is much more solid than base Dominion, and it's obviously due to DXV's growth as a designer. I don't think it has the depth to reach Dominion levels even with expansions, because I don't think new zone cards/player cards will have the impact that new kingdom cards do with every Dominion expansion.
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2015 22:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 09:59 |
|
|
Off to do the Watch the Skies 2 megagame as featured in SU&SD tomorrow. Pretty fuckin' excited 
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2015 23:46
|
|
|
tarbrush posted:Off to do the Watch the Skies 2 megagame as featured in SU&SD tomorrow. Pretty fuckin' excited That looked like a blast.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2015 02:04
|
|
|
Guy A. Person posted:Yeah comparing Dominion in its current state to Temporum in its current state is probably unfair. I think base Temporum is much more solid than base Dominion, and it's obviously due to DXV's growth as a designer. I don't think it has the depth to reach Dominion levels even with expansions, because I don't think new zone cards/player cards will have the impact that new kingdom cards do with every Dominion expansion. I agree. I think Temporum is pretty rad, mainly because it scratches the Dominion itch in a similar time, arguably much shorter if you factor in shuffling/setup/teardown. Would definitely like to see the deck get expanded. Crackbone fucked around with this message at 02:16 on Mar 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2015 02:11
|
|
|
Played Kingsburg tonight, won, didn't like it. How is it possible that a game in this day an age has a core mechanic where rolling high numbers is objectively better than rolling low ones? (Yes, there is some mitigation, but not enough to make it so someone who always rolls high doesn't always come out on top). I also played The Ancient World and I played really poorly and got stomped. Not sure how to feel about it, would try it again. Maybe next time I'll sit over on the side where all the empire cards come up so I can look at those since my strategy of just trying to be Titan-Slayer wasn't working. I think I have to be a bit more adaptable.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2015 05:18
|
|
|
EvilChameleon posted:Played Kingsburg tonight, won, didn't like it. How is it possible that a game in this day an age has a core mechanic where rolling high numbers is objectively better than rolling low ones? (Yes, there is some mitigation, but not enough to make it so someone who always rolls high doesn't always come out on top). I'm honestly not sure if 2007 can be considered "this day and age" anymore with regards to board games.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2015 05:20
|
|
|
Gimnbo posted:I'm honestly not sure if 2007 can be considered "this day and age" anymore with regards to board games. I didn't know it was that old, but I think people would have figured out by the 20th century that this is the case with games.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2015 05:28
|
|
|
EvilChameleon posted:I didn't know it was that old, but I think people would have figured out by the 20th century that this is the case with games.  People figured out games of chance are fun for everyone, and games without chance are fun for the especially skilled around the same time they figured out board games in general. Chess began as a dice game and evolved to have less randomness over time because of house rules by skilled players.On the other hand no casino in the world would ever offer genuine games of skill (except poker I guess, where they just take a cut of every pot).
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2015 11:45
|
|
|
Rutibex posted:
Agreed, there's always a place for games of chance, though you'd expect them to be short and sweet or Ameritrashy as gently caress to get away with it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2015 12:00
|
|
|
Games of chance aren't fun for everyone, though. Also, a question: how do skilled players become skilled at a game? If a game that lacks chance elements (or minimizes them) is only fun for people that are skilled in the game, how do people even get started into the game?
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2015 12:13
|
|
|
Tekopo posted:Games of chance aren't fun for everyone, though. By not crying like a bitch when they lose and loving off to play something else.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2015 12:20
|
|
|
Tekopo posted:Games of chance aren't fun for everyone, though. By "everyone" I mean "the masses" not necessarily literally every single person. I'm sure a person whose mother was killed in a dicing accident and who is triggered by the sight of pips would not enjoy them for example. But in ancient Rome everyone gambled on dice, rich and poor alike. Only educated people played Ludus Latrunculorum.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2015 12:26
|
|
|
quote:By not crying like a bitch when they lose and loving off to play something else. Pretty much that, yeah. I'm at that stage at the moment in Tzolk'in, I've been through cycles of it with several other games, notably Through the Ages and Dominion - chiefly, games playable online, with a relatively low randomness quotient, relatively high skill quotient, and good interfaces with quick or PBEM play. There's a fairly major reward to becoming skilled at a game, for me at least. I find it difficult to become good enough at games to be really satisfied if I only play them in person - because my gaming group are a LOT better at them than I am - so unless I can either get good at it elsewhere, or enjoy losing at it, I'm not likely to enjoy a game. thespaceinvader fucked around with this message at 12:29 on Mar 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2015 12:26
|
|
|
Tekopo posted:Also, a question: how do skilled players become skilled at a game? If a game that lacks chance elements (or minimizes them) is only fun for people that are skilled in the game, how do people even get started into the game? By playing people of an approximately similar skill level. Are chess clubs in schools still a thing? The kids aren't usually excellent players in an objective sense, but by playing other kids with similar skill level they can be motivated to improve themselves and also measure their progress against their peers. The best way to learn is by playing close games, so you can see where things went well or poorly for you and think about things you could have done differently. One-sided games between players of widely different skill levels aren't usually that educational.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2015 12:32
|
|
|
Jabor posted:By playing people of an approximately similar skill level. Are chess clubs in schools still a thing? The kids aren't usually excellent players in an objective sense, but by playing other kids with similar skill level they can be motivated to improve themselves and also measure their progress against their peers. Depending on your area Chess still exists in schools.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2015 12:43
|
|
|
Rutibex posted:By "everyone" I mean "the masses" not necessarily literally every single person. I'm sure a person whose mother was killed in a dicing accident and who is triggered by the sight of pips would not enjoy them for example. But in ancient Rome everyone gambled on dice, rich and poor alike. Only educated people played Ludus Latrunculorum. Jabor posted:By playing people of an approximately similar skill level. Are chess clubs in schools still a thing? The kids aren't usually excellent players in an objective sense, but by playing other kids with similar skill level they can be motivated to improve themselves and also measure their progress against their peers. I would contest that it isn't educational to play with people outside your skill level , however. The problem with most games is that there isn't a large enough group of consistent players that can allow you to increase the skill level slowly like a chess club can. It can therefore be important to play people more skilled than you to prevent yourself from being stuck in a weird meta that only came about because how you and your limited group of friends play the game. An example of this is Twilight Struggle, where some of the most important parts for me when I learnt the game was playing higher skilled players, because it allowed me to strategies that I had missed completely with my games with friends. I know there are assholes out there that just want to crush newbies, but usually if I play people with lower skill I don't mind going through an analysis and explaining choices/strategies (I love doing open hand games of Twilight Struggle especially).
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2015 14:29
|
|
|
Rutibex posted:
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2015 14:55
|
|
|
tarbrush posted:Off to do the Watch the Skies 2 megagame as featured in SU&SD tomorrow. Pretty fuckin' excited Oh, another one? I better be taking notes for my Welcome to Earth design doc.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2015 15:09
|
|
|
Poison Mushroom posted:Blackjack almost counts. But it says something that the dealers can and do tell you what "the book" says you should do at any point if you ask. Except that you'll get thrown out of the casino for playing optimally (bidding big only on deals when the composition of the deck is in your favour).
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2015 15:13
|
|
|
It's a good point that gambling for real money makes a game very different. Hold 'Em Poker is a good mix of luck and skill for a gambling game. But if you play it just for fun, it's definitely too luck-based. Folding is optimal too often, considering that the fun thing to do is never fold. One time I just decided it would be silly and fun to always make the same bet/raise every time it came around to me. Well, my friends aren't idiots, so they waited for good hands, but I sucked out and won every single time. I won nearly every hand I was dealt until they ran out of chips. That's too much luck for a board game, although it's fine for a gambling game. And it was an incredible run of luck.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2015 15:56
|
|
|
Oh, Jesus. SU&SD, a week ago, posted a glowing review of loving Saboteur.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2015 21:03
|
|
|
Has anyone played Shadows of Brimstone and have an opinion on it?
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2015 21:10
|
|
|
Poison Mushroom posted:Oh, Jesus. SU&SD, a week ago, posted a glowing review of loving Saboteur. Hahahahahahahaha.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2015 21:42
|
|
|
Poison Mushroom posted:Oh, Jesus. SU&SD, a week ago, posted a glowing review of loving Saboteur. And yet it makes more sense than the charades rant in yesterday's monikers review.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2015 21:46
|
|
|
Macdeo Lurjtux posted:Has anyone played Shadows of Brimstone and have an opinion on it? Dice dice counters roll for move roll d6 more counters draw counters equal to d6 roll roll roll roll roll whoops im dead
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2015 22:28
|
|
|
So, I finally played Dead of Winter, and I will just add my thoughts even though they are not new. I went in with low expectations, and I went out feeling glad I had tried it and hoping that I wont have to again. Holy crap, the dicerolling. So many dice and so much random. That to me was the worst part. We played two games, the first was betrayerless, and I was the betrayer in the second round. I never felt much pressure to do anything particularly bad as the betrayer, and even though I hid some stuff, no one bothered to suspect a thing. The crossroad cards were mostly just "yeah, that guy isn't in play", and the rest were "eh, lets play it safe". I feel like it could really benefit from having two equal choices with both good and bad aspects, instead of "stuff vs no stuff". However, with a group of roleplayers or similar, I could see it leading to some pretty good stories, with all the flavour. And experience generators are good too I suppose. Other games we played were Skull and Roses, which is still awesome and Machi Koro with the harbour expansion. The expansion added a random market, which I feel added nothing and also slowed down the game a fair bit. I like the two extra landmarks and the new cards, but the fixed market feels a lot better.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2015 22:42
|
|
|
Poison Mushroom posted:Oh, Jesus. SU&SD, a week ago, posted a glowing review of loving Saboteur. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 05:22
|
|
|
bowmore posted:It made me want to play it If you haven't played Saboteur before, that's exactly the problem.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 05:27
|
|
|
Some Numbers posted:If you haven't played Saboteur before, that's exactly the problem.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 05:28
|
|
|
Calling it a "hidden role game" is a stretch. The game's not very good.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 05:44
|
|
|
So I finally played Caylus for the first time and was really impressed despite the hype it sometimes gets here. Why would anyone ever choose the Gate, though?
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 06:43
|
|
|
homullus posted:So I finally played Caylus for the first time and was really impressed despite the hype it sometimes gets here. Why would anyone ever choose the Gate, though? It's not used often, but it's a way to guarantee you're the last one building the castle, which means you know how many sections you have to build to get the favor award.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 06:54
|
|
|
admanb posted:It's not used often, but it's a way to guarantee you're the last one building the castle, which means you know how many sections you have to build to get the favor award. Not necessarily guarantee. There may not be a space left in the castle if you're playing with more than three. It's better used as a way to conceal your plans so people can't plan ahead to block you with the Provost.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 09:19
|
|
|
Trip report from the megagame It's SU&SD as gently caress. Thematically amazing, incredibly engrossing, but quite rules light, and what rules there were were a little janky . That said, for £30 it was just stunning and the amount of emergent gameplay from what was pretty much a 300 person larp with quite loose goals was brilliant. I'm booked in the next one and looking forward to it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 09:29
|
|
|
Any thoughts on State of Emergency, the new Pandemic expansion? I read it doesn't require the other two, but makes the purple cubes from On the Brink redundant. Which is kind of a shame and I'd have liked another color in the mix, but if it's worth getting anyway I'll pick it up. If it's just scenarios I might skip it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 09:55
|
|
|
Some Numbers posted:Saboteur stuff. We houseruled the game so that after someone finds the gold he doesn't hand the remaining reward cards over to the previous player, but instead the cards go to the next player. This way people are still working together to reach the gold, but setting it up so the next player finds it will leave you in the worst position when it comes to the rewards being handed out. Everybody still wants to dig and reach the goal, but at the same time they try to add twists and turns to the mineshaft so that getting there happens in a way more convenient to them. This removes the obviousness of the Saboteurs, because everyone is trying to change the shafts now. It has worked great for my group, we don't even need saboteurs sometimes because greed will just destroy the whole effort.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 10:44
|
|
|
Just made a thread for a PbP game of Sherlock Holmes Consulting Detective, if anyone is interested in trying it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 10:45
|
|
|
bowmore posted:I haven't, what's wrong with it? Essentially you get one group of players who will get some rewards, and another group (the saboteurs) who essentially get to sit around doing nothing because the larger group broke their tools. In the game as is there isn't enough of an incentive to soft-sabotage the routes to ensure you reach the gold first - which means anyone not actively helping will get outed as a saboteur straight away.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 11:29
|
|
|
Zark the Damned posted:Essentially you get one group of players who will get some rewards, and another group (the saboteurs) who essentially get to sit around doing nothing because the larger group broke their tools. In the game as is there isn't enough of an incentive to soft-sabotage the routes to ensure you reach the gold first - which means anyone not actively helping will get outed as a saboteur straight away. In Saboteur's defense, I will say that it's a much easier and more straightforward traitor game to actually play than, say, The Resistance, where new players can get scared to say or do anything for fear of losing the game for everyone. Plus it's not like you'll get stuck arguing about bullshit for 10 or more minutes in Saboteur, unlike The Resistance. Just don't expect masterstrokes of tactics or anything other than an 'A-ha! Fooled you!' every couple of games because there's not a whole lot of actual game there.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 12:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 09:59 |
|
|
Played Midgard yesterday. Is an area control game by the designer of Chaos in the Old World. Players place their meeples in order to control regions by simple majority at the end of the turn. Each region belongs to one of three provinces, and scoring more regions in a single province gives more points than scoring several regions in different provinces but spreadings your ddes around gives you more varied tokens at the scoring phase, and sets of these give you points at the end. Random regions each turn give you more points but remove your people from the board. There is a draft phase at the start of each of the three turns, where you choose the actions that you'll have available during the turn (place dudes, place less dudes but remove opposing ones and some special actions, like scoring a region, getting tokens or extra actions) It plays pretty fast (I'd say an hour with 4 players), and there is less kingmaking than in other games because you pick which actions you have available before you see the board develop. The winner was trailing the entire game and managed to pull ahead on the final count via tokens, taking over other two players that had been doubling his score by the end of the second turn. The board is as ugly as it can be, though. Compare the cool Viking on the box to the dry components (picture not mine):  I ended up with the impression that it's a better version of Smallworld. Rules light, very tactically focused (although less than Smallworld, due to the draft), quick. It really misses in the first impression,though. Is nowere nearly as colourful and attractive as Smallworld, and the theme equally nerdy, but it's the wrong kind of nerdy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 15:12
|
|