|
For all the problems with player elimination, it does mean there's usually an easy way to handle a player conceding. There's been a few games I've been a part of where I was clearly dead in the water and it led to me having a bad time because there was nothing meaningful to actually do, but the game couldn't really handle one person just standing up and disappearing and nobody was willing to improvise so if I walked off everyone else would end up quitting in a huff. It's why (well, one of a few reasons why) I don't own Twilight Imperium.
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 08:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 07:06 |
|
|
Play through the ages, the game where conceding is not only a part of the rules, but also a viable tactic.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 08:26
|
|
|
Heatwizard posted:For all the problems with player elimination, it does mean there's usually an easy way to handle a player conceding. There's been a few games I've been a part of where I was clearly dead in the water and it led to me having a bad time because there was nothing meaningful to actually do, but the game couldn't really handle one person just standing up and disappearing and nobody was willing to improvise so if I walked off everyone else would end up quitting in a huff. It's why (well, one of a few reasons why) I don't own Twilight Imperium. Having people being dead in the water is bad game design in the first place though. There should always be some sort of catchup mechanic so everyone feels like they're in there. Of course, there should also be meaningful advantages to playing well, so it's a balancing act.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 09:52
|
|
|
Tekopo posted:Play through the ages, the game where conceding is not only a part of the rules, but also a viable tactic. I once "gave up" in a round of Galaxy Trucker because I figured I'd do better quitting now and taking the half-off penalty than losing all my cargo to my vulnerable ship. I think it actually paid off, too. Of course, that's only conceding for a round. I also threatened to king-make once in a game of Twilight Imperium in hopes that the two other players would end up going against each other and forget to take me out. Scummy as poo poo, but it worked.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 10:18
|
|
|
Mega64 posted:I also threatened to king-make once in a game of Twilight Imperium in hopes that the two other players would end up going against each other and forget to take me out. Scummy as poo poo, but it worked. If you're pushed into an unwinnable situation by another player, in a diplomatic game where alliances are about nonexistent, I consider it fair game to push back using others if you can. One time my homeworld was under massive blockade (but defended by 4 mechanical units), so I offered my complete trade income as payment to the aggressor's other neighbour to attack him. That guy refused, so I threatened to fund his neighbour to attack him. In worker placement or other games where cooperation isn't facilitated by the game rules, though, it's extremely lovely to play kingmaker because someone took something you wanted.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 10:37
|
|
|
"If you take that wood, I will make your entire family... starve!" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7edeOEuXdMU
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 10:45
|
|
|
Then they don't take the wood and you make their family starve anyway! Ain't no friends in high stakes subsistence farming.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 11:08
|
|
|
Aston posted:Then they don't take the wood and you make their family starve anyway! Even worse when you take someone's sheep.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 12:16
|
|
|
Zveroboy posted:Even worse when you take someone's sheep. I heard something about trading wood for sheep? I think that's a thing we a group could decide on the fun-value of.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 12:20
|
|
|
Zveroboy posted:Even worse when you take someone's sheep. I once played a game of Agricola where a spiteful player grabbed 5 Sheep from the pen, and just let 4 of them go, so that I couldn't grab them the next turn 
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 12:24
|
|
|
Aston posted:Then they don't take the wood and you make their family starve anyway!
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 12:25
|
|
|
BonHair posted:I heard something about trading wood for sheep? I think that's a thing we a group could decide on the fun-value of.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 12:26
|
|
|
Rutibex posted:I once played a game of Agricola where a spiteful player grabbed 5 Sheep from the pen, and just let 4 of them go, so that I couldn't grab them the next turn At least when I took the sheep I turned them into food, but letting them go? That's just inhumane.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 12:27
|
|
|
Ecoterrorism simulator.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 12:32
|
|
|
Bubble-T posted:Ecoterrorism simulator. I would totally be into a 1v1 game where one guy was trying to farm minks and the other was trying to free them. It could even bridge the gap between worker placement and agression, where one player was optimizing economy through workers and the other was just trying to get as many free pests as possible with no workers involved. Maybe it would be even better with one farmer and severeal animal rights players competing.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 12:50
|
|
|
BonHair posted:I would totally be into a 1v1 game where one guy was trying to farm minks and the other was trying to free them. It could even bridge the gap between worker placement and agression, where one player was optimizing economy through workers and the other was just trying to get as many free pests as possible with no workers involved. Maybe it would be even better with one farmer and severeal animal rights players competing. Rob Daviau was spitballing something like this in an interview, IIRC you'd be a farmer with pigs that organise a revolution Animal Farm style.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 13:03
|
|
|
Lottery of Babylon posted:One time I saw someone fake-ragequit a game of The Resistance as a ploy to get one of the other spies onto the last mission. How did this work?
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 13:12
|
|
|
http://www.shutupandsitdown.com/blog/post/review-cards-against-humanity/ SUSD nails Cards Against Humanity. Paul: "But I can’t stand it. I feel sad when I see other people playing it. I know they only want to enjoy my hobby, but seeing another copy sold, opened or played is a miserable reminder of how the drat thing is everywhere." Matt: "You’re never expected to take responsibility for any of the things that the game makes you say, but that doesn’t solve the problem of why you own it in the first place." Quinns: "I hate Cards Against Humanity because it’s poo poo." They keep doing interesting, insightful and entertaining reviews. Maybe it was a rough patch?
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 13:38
|
|
|
Yep, pretty good review.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 13:42
|
|
|
That is loving amazing.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 14:27
|
|
|
I was amazed how well they summed up the game. SU&SD has been hitting the mark for a while now, but they've clearly put thought into approaching the 'review'. I appreciate that they manage to cover both the fact that the game's content is pretty irredeemable while also explaining why it's a mechanically poo poo game.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 14:31
|
|
|
Yeah, that was a good review. I still didn't find Quinns review of Elysium that helpful and the Dogs of War review had some weird undertones in it, as if it were a retaliation towards Paul's argument that solo games can be fun in the Friday review. Felt like it was pushing the gaming-is-fun-because-of-your-friends agenda thing a little bit. Haven't watched the Imperial Settlers/Nations review or Panamax reviews yet; I think the reason is I can't tell if they genuinely like games like that anymore and so it doesn't feel like I'd get a whole-hearted take on the topics. But I guess Paul liked Panamax so maybe I'm wrong and should check it out. I guess it's nice to see them review some euros again though, since that seemed like it was a bit of a blind spot earlier in the year
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 14:56
|
|
|
fozzy fosbourne posted:Yeah, that was a good review. I still didn't find Quinns review of Elysium that helpful and the Dogs of War review had some weird undertones in it, as if it were a retaliation towards Paul's argument that solo games can be fun in the Friday review. Felt like it was pushing the gaming-is-fun-because-of-your-friends agenda thing a little bit. Haven't watched the Imperial Settlers/Nations review or Panamax reviews yet; I think the reason is I can't tell if they genuinely like games like that anymore and so it doesn't feel like I'd get a whole-hearted take on the topics. But I guess Paul liked Panamax so maybe I'm wrong and should check it out. They seemed to be suffering some sort of complex game malaise that was pushing them away from the core market, but it looks like they're being lured back in. The Imp Settlers review was on point.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 15:01
|
|
|
fozzy fosbourne posted:Yeah, that was a good review. I still didn't find Quinns review of Elysium that helpful and the Dogs of War review had some weird undertones in it, as if it were a retaliation towards Paul's argument that solo games can be fun in the Friday review. Felt like it was pushing the gaming-is-fun-because-of-your-friends agenda thing a little bit. Haven't watched the Imperial Settlers/Nations review or Panamax reviews yet; I think the reason is I can't tell if they genuinely like games like that anymore and so it doesn't feel like I'd get a whole-hearted take on the topics. But I guess Paul liked Panamax so maybe I'm wrong and should check it out. The Nations/Imperial Settlers review is... interesting. Towards the end, it becomes apparent that Quinns views visual design in games as potentially more important than game design. At the same time, the focus on "fun" (generally equated with lighter games) and "funny" as points of focus makes it difficult to take seriously. I feel like I would enjoy Quinns' reviews more if he were the SU&SD "light" games correspondent and evaluated those particular games with greater depth, rather than when he reviews heavier games that he's clearly not keen on because he has certain expectations of what board games should do. edit: VVVV tekopo sort of touches on the problem. It's clear they want to talk about games, but the fact that they probably only play a few games before they do the review (which is fair enough, as they have a high turnover to get through) means they can't get stuck in to the mechanics as much as I'd like and end up focusing on things like visual design, social aspects and the "funny" thing. The Narrator fucked around with this message at 15:08 on May 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 15:04
|
|
|
Well, on point as long as you omit the fact that Imperial Settlers is umbalanced crap that doesn't stand up to more than a few games, which is understandable since they probably don't get a chance to go that in-depth when they only have a few days to play and review games.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 15:05
|
|
|
Tekopo posted:Well, on point as long as you omit the fact that Imperial Settlers is umbalanced crap that doesn't stand up to more than a few games, which is understandable since they probably don't get a chance to go that in-depth when they only have a few days to play and review games. Yes, it's a glaring oversight, but at least they identify that it's a flawed game, even if they don't articulate it fully
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 15:07
|
|
|
The Narrator posted:The Nations/Imperial Settlers review is... interesting. Towards the end, it becomes apparent that Quinns views visual design in games as potentially more important than game design. At the same time, the focus on "fun" (generally equated with lighter games) and "funny" as points of focus makes it difficult to take seriously. I feel like I would enjoy Quinns' reviews more if he were the SU&SD "light" games correspondent and evaluated those particular games with greater depth, rather than when he reviews heavier games that he's clearly not keen on because he has certain expectations of what board games should do.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 15:10
|
|
|
That was solid. If I never play CAH again, I'd die a contented man. That said, I just have a couple, niggling points. Paul posted:I know they only want to enjoy my hobby Do "they"? The people I know who always ask to play Cards Against Humanity never seem all that keen on most other board games I try to introduce them to. They don't want to place workers or muck about with a lot of rules ("a lot" being more than two or three), they just want to drink and laugh at the cards. If CAH vanished tomorrow, I don't think all the people who played it would go scrambling for a copy of Cosmic Encounter to fill the void. The other issue concerns Funemployment. I have Funemployment, and I like Funemployment. I think I successfully transitioned a small group of friends from CAH to Funemployment the last time they were visiting. Everyone got a chance to be creative and wacky and lewd and it was a blast. That said, I don't think Funemployment is for everyone and I don't think it's the CAH-killer Quinns et al want it to be. The group I played with were all relatively extroverted. Most of us have jobs that require us to do a reasonable amount of public speaking / client interaction, and I think everyone involved did at least some acting at some point (student fims, high school plays, art school stuff, etc). With the right kind of crowd, Funemployment is gold. But a lot of the board game meetups I go to have a lot of quieter, introverted people who shut down at the idea of "performing" the way Funemployment expects you to. CAH, on the other hand, asks a lot less of you. So yeah, the low-effort lowest-common-denominator aspects of Cards Against Humanity are a feature, not a bug, for a lot of people and that is unfortunate. But those are minor issues with an otherwise solid article.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 15:25
|
|
|
I am irrationally offended by the implication that CAH is like Lego. *clicks two Lego bricks together* I have successfully Lego'd. Also, wow, they barely touch on the problems from a gameplay perspective, and instead focus on the social contract problems that the game is willingly and consciously breaking. What sense does that make? "Hey, this piece of transgressional fiction is bad because it deals with inappropriate topics." "How about the fact that its themes make no sense and it reads like it was written by a fourth grader?" "I don't see how that's relevant."
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 15:29
|
|
|
Eh, Quinns had a "I hate the game because it is poo poo" and that was basically what you were talking about?
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 15:39
|
|
|
Quinns posted:Don’t get me wrong. The idea of someone arriving at their very first game night and assuming that the table gaming scene is this insensitive upsets me. But even worse is the thought that someone might sit down to play Cards Against Humanity, and assume the entire hobby is this boring. Yeah there's the judgment on quality. The problem is that it was preceded by paragraphs of him talking about basically the same things the other two were. The amount of activity the article is generating goes to show how much of a sacred cow the game is. That's really depressing.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 15:43
|
|
|
Tekopo posted:He almost gets a moment of clarity in the IS/Nations review where he realises this, though. Watching him struggle with the idea that maybe a game he doesn't instinctively like is good was pretty funny. Then he went and made a "but it's cheaper" argument and I could only think of Rutibex's weight/cost ratio ratings.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 15:45
|
|
|
EndOfTheWorld posted:The other issue concerns Funemployment. I have Funemployment, and I like Funemployment. I think I successfully transitioned a small group of friends from CAH to Funemployment the last time they were visiting. Everyone got a chance to be creative and wacky and lewd and it was a blast. That said, I don't think Funemployment is for everyone and I don't think it's the CAH-killer Quinns et al want it to be. The group I played with were all relatively extroverted. Most of us have jobs that require us to do a reasonable amount of public speaking / client interaction, and I think everyone involved did at least some acting at some point (student fims, high school plays, art school stuff, etc). With the right kind of crowd, Funemployment is gold. But a lot of the board game meetups I go to have a lot of quieter, introverted people who shut down at the idea of "performing" the way Funemployment expects you to. CAH, on the other hand, asks a lot less of you. So yeah, the low-effort lowest-common-denominator aspects of Cards Against Humanity are a feature, not a bug, for a lot of people and that is unfortunate. That's an interesting point. CAH is a party game that (mechanically) works for more introverted folks because it's not an acting/bluffing/negotiation game. You don't communicate other than through written, distasteful humor. As much as the game sucks, that's definitely a feature Edit: it's kind of like the traitor games that let you betray the group via hidden cards vs outright lying. I find the former to be more universally appealing Magnetic North posted:
They actually argue that it's a good thing that the game has intentionally vague rules about the duration and winner. I can see not placing an emphasis on clear end game conditions in a game like this, but I've never thought to myself "hmm this game would be much better if it were open ended" fozzy fosbourne fucked around with this message at 15:52 on May 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 15:46
|
|
|
To be fair CaH is so poo poo as a game that "end when you want" probably is a good thing. It's really close to the toy end of the spectrum.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 15:48
|
|
|
fozzy fosbourne posted:That's an interesting point. CAH is a party game that (mechanically) works for more introverted folks because it's not an acting/bluffing/negotiation game. You don't communicate other than through written, distasteful humor. As much as the game sucks, that's definitely a feature Cards Against Humanity: a Party Game for People Who Don't Like Parties
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 15:51
|
|
|
Gimnbo posted:Cards Against Humanity: a Party Game for People Who Don't Like Parties Or Games
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 15:51
|
|
|
Bubble-T posted:To be fair CaH is so poo poo as a game that "end when you want" probably is a good thing. It's really close to the toy end of the spectrum. I found the part of the review interesting where he essentially points out that it's a bad toy- it's supposed to be a mechanism for making jokes but the jokes are all punchline with no context or delivery, there's only so many so it stops being funny after you've seen the deck once or twice, and you're entirely limited by what you have to play at any given moment (which is kinda funny given the arguments we have about single-deck games and luck, I kinda wanna see Caylus Against Humanity just as an experiment)
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 15:56
|
|
|
CAH fills the "stupid campfire" "looking for easy laughs" type game in my group of friends during our summer trips or thanksgiving get-togethers. Usually it's played after we get bored of mafia, put out the fire and go inside. When we've got a large (7-10) group of people that don't really feel like splitting into smaller groups for real games or being overtly creative. I don't know if there's a better game for the specific instances that we play it. CAH is the late-night game, Dixit or Say Anything come out the next morning during breakfast when we're more sober and feeling more creative edit: I think the context point is crucial - if you're playing CAH and it's not with people you know well, it just becomes a bunch of shock-jokes. When you're playing with people you know, it's about targeting the person who's judging (of course, Say Anything and Dixit do this WAY better) Deceptive Thinker fucked around with this message at 16:02 on May 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 16:00
|
|
|
My parents actually bought me CAH because they knew I liked games and it was popular (which is the only reason they knew about it). We've played it a few times and I shamefully admit that I laughed at a few things, but honestly the truth set in pretty fast and I doubt I will ever bring the game to the table again. Also, it's just a rude version of Apples to Apples, which I thought was pretty clever and funny for an extremely light game without being offensive. Now I don't particularly like Apples to Apples either, but some people in my family love it so I enjoy playing it from time to time. Deceptive Thinker posted:I don't know if there's a better game for the specific instances that we play it. CAH is the late-night game, Dixit or Say Anything come out the next morning during breakfast when we're more sober and feeling more creative Like I mentioned above, Apples to Apples is the same thing but without all the rape, poop, racism, etc.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 16:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 07:06 |
|
|
Yeah, I don't think I've ever played a game of CAH where anyone gave a poo poo about points or who won. Sometimes people got salty that no one ever picked THEIR polish baby holocaust card, but CAH games usually went until people started getting visibly bored with it. The open-ended nature of it also makes it useful for board game meetups. You go to one of these things, and there are ~20 people there. People break off into groups of 4-7 to play Pandemic, Dominion, or Dead of Winter, so it's good to have something light and simple and noncompetitive that someone can be dealt into while they're waiting to play something else. Cards Against Humanity: Look rear end in a top hat, it's either this or play with the host's cat.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 16:01
|
|