|
Gimnbo posted:Cards Against Humanity: a Party Game for People Who Don't Like Parties Well, most parties don't feature a lot of "acting/lying/negotiation" either, unless you party a lot with meth dealers or manics or something. I'd say that "communicating with humor" is actually probably closer to the mark for most people, it's just lovely humor in a banal game E: "Party Games: A Reason Why People Don't Usually Play Games At Parties" fozzy fosbourne fucked around with this message at 16:16 on May 7, 2015 |
#
?
May 7, 2015 16:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 09:56 |
|
|
SU&SD comment section posted:So back when CAH where only just a pnp, me and my friends played it allot and one time we were at my place and we got the idea to let one of my Guinea pigs play. What we did was that we drew 3 cards and the one he first sniffed where the one he played, the guinea pig actually won that game and now we don't play CAH no more, it really showed how little creativity was needed to actually win.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 16:03
|
|
|
drat Dirty Ape posted:Like I mentioned above, Apples to Apples is the same thing but without all the rape, poop, racism, etc. But typically that leads to fewer laughs, (at least with my friends) and there are far more CAH cards than Apples to Apples cards That said in most situations Say Anything is a better game than both
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 16:03
|
|
|
StashAugustine posted:Guinea Pig This is a real optional rule in the rulebook. You have a fake player named "Rando Cardrissian" that just plays a random card into the pile, for if you have like too few players or whatever. He usually ends up being competitive, even on the "pick two in order" types of cards. It's mega sad 
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 16:05
|
|
|
I honestly feel like A2A is a better game simply because you have to put effort into making a dirty joke with it
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 16:06
|
|
|
Last year, on a vacation, a friend brought out Cards against Humanity. I dreaded playing it, but decided to get drunk and try to enjoy myself. I am ashamed to admit I liked it when drunk. I'm sorry, thread, I know people tend to do dumb things when drunk but I wish I could undo that afternoon.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 16:09
|
|
|
nimby posted:Last year, on a vacation, a friend brought out Cards against Humanity. I dreaded playing it, but decided to get drunk and try to enjoy myself. *makes a little note in his book*
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 16:09
|
|
|
deadly_pudding posted:This is a real optional rule in the rulebook. You have a fake player named "Rando Cardrissian" that just plays a random card into the pile, for if you have like too few players or whatever. He usually ends up being competitive, even on the "pick two in order" types of cards. Rando should be the base ruleset, it's both an actual mechanism in a game sorely lacking them and a way to show people just how bad the game is. nimby posted:Last year, on a vacation, a friend brought out Cards against Humanity. I dreaded playing it, but decided to get drunk and try to enjoy myself.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 16:09
|
|
|
I think the biggest problem with CAH is the whole: "You like board games? Have you played..." "...Cards Against Humanity?" "...Settlers of Catan?" "...Monopoly?" "...Arkham Horror?"
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 16:10
|
|
|
quote:I hate Cards Against Humanity because it’s poo poo. 
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 16:11
|
|
|
"...18OE?"
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 16:11
|
|
|
Mega64 posted: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. Probably the worst I've done is just give up and dedicated my entire game to loving over one other player in a round of Risk Legacy. To be fair, it was the second game in a row where someone else just drafted Bears and final placement, placed right next to me, and destroyed my base before I ever got a turn. Sometimes a little "if you effectively remove me from the game before I ever get to take an action, I'm going to kingmake the poo poo out of keeping you from winning" is needed as a sort of meta-balancing mechanic. God do I hate Risk.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 16:15
|
|
|
Deceptive Thinker posted:I think the biggest problem with CAH is the whole: "You like board games? Have you played..." One of these things is not like the other.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 16:18
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:One of these things is not like the other. Arkham Horror has a great cost:weight ratio, I agree.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 16:19
|
|
|
I think we really need to drive forward the cost:weight ratio as the premier way to judge and analyze games.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 16:20
|
|
|
ain't a patch on card:cost imo
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 16:21
|
|
|
Tekopo posted:I think we really need to drive forward the cost:weight ratio as the premier way to judge and analyze games. Which is why I just play with playdoh
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 16:21
|
|
|
Be prepared for my upcoming game with lead pieces, lead board and lead card, all held inside a beautifully detailed lead box.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 16:21
|
|
|
Cuba Libre and 1989 have splendid cost to weight ratios, ruterbix The cost/weight ratio is pretty outdated though, the field of ludology has moved onto density/cost
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 16:21
|
|
|
Accidentally my game is a game about the dangers of lead poisoning.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 16:22
|
|
|
Fungah! posted:ain't a patch on card:cost imo Card games are for children who can't hold real pieces in their hands like pewter minis and metal coins. gently caress those metal coins make Viticulture super heavy.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 16:22
|
|
|
fozzy fosbourne posted:Cuba Libre and 1989 have splendid cost to weight ratios, ruterbix 1989 is the only game to have a David Hasselhoff VP marker 
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 16:24
|
|
|
Played a full "campaign" of Risk Legacy, only won once. The other players would make fun of me for not winning, and chide me for being too conservative in my attacks. Totaly unrelated to any of that or my behavior, whenever I would "break out" they would all conspire to put me back in my place.GrandpaPants posted:gently caress those metal coins make Viticulture super heavy.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 16:24
|
|
|
I kinda wanna see COIN Legacy in like Ireland or Afghanistan
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 16:27
|
|
|
StashAugustine posted:I kinda wanna see COIN Legacy in like Ireland or Afghanistan  Who's excited about Pax Pamir?
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 16:28
|
|
|
StashAugustine posted:I kinda wanna see COIN Legacy in like Ireland or Afghanistan That would be loving amazing.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 16:28
|
|
|
Tekopo posted:That'd be sorta interesting, start Afghanistan from the Great Game era or even before I am excited to see Pax Porfirana hopefully with better rulebook and art, and also to hear Phil Eklund's opinions on British colonialism  Honestly though I kinda prefer the Mexican Revolution theme of Porfirana
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 16:30
|
|
|
OtspIII posted:Probably the worst I've done is just give up and dedicated my entire game to loving over one other player in a round of Risk Legacy. To be fair, it was the second game in a row where someone else just drafted Bears and final placement, placed right next to me, and destroyed my base before I ever got a turn. Sometimes a little "if you effectively remove me from the game before I ever get to take an action, I'm going to kingmake the poo poo out of keeping you from winning" is needed as a sort of meta-balancing mechanic. Right now my meta has developed into "all of us bash his knees at the beginning like Nancy Kerrigan" because I've won a lot of these more political games lately. I'm working on figuring out how to keep enjoying it, because while it sucks it's kind of legitimate I guess. The closest I get to going on tilt is when one of these Nancy Kerrigan games develop AND I'm spending most of the downtime teaching another player how to execute their turns while they are conspiring to gently caress my poo poo up. I just clutch my Crucial Conversations manual, perform some mindful meditation while imaging myself diving into a pool of vp tokens, Uncle Scrooge style
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 16:32
|
|
|
StashAugustine posted:I am excited to see Pax Porfirana hopefully with better rulebook and art, and also to hear Phil Eklund's opinions on British colonialism I don't know what your problem with the art is. Cards seem pretty clear to me.  EDIT: Card is likely to have 3+ cubes and discs of different colours on top of it.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 16:35
|
|
|
There is an interview with eklund on the Ludology podcast that I'm saving for a rainy day
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 16:36
|
|
|
fozzy fosbourne posted:Right now my meta has developed into "all of us bash his knees at the beginning like Nancy Kerrigan" because I've won a lot of these more political games lately. I'm working on figuring out how to keep enjoying it, because while it sucks it's kind of legitimate I guess. This is me, a lot of the time. I sacrifice my own performance because I'm babysitting the drunk guy or the person who couldn't be arsed to watch a How It's Played.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 16:36
|
|
|
I make myself a huge target by being the loudest of the group and usually owning the game. This makes everyone, new players specifically, assume I'm the biggest threat.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 16:46
|
|
|
Lord Frisk posted:I make myself a huge target by being the loudest of the group and usually owning the game. This makes everyone, new players specifically, assume I'm the biggest threat. I certainly know that feeling. Eh, at this point I'd be bored if my play group didn't gun for me out of the gate in some games. Its also the only thing that keeps me from winning every game of Kemet I get in my playgroup.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 16:54
|
|
|
There's a guy I have played with infrequently that always needs the most frequent and lengthy explanations. It's easy to think of him as the weakest link (every group has one, if your group doesn't then it's you.) He also has been reminded numerous times to announce the end of his turn to help gameflow but for some perverse reason cannot consistently do it. Forgot? Bullshit! You only needed to be told once how much money you get per round and you have no trouble remembering that. But I do welcome him to games because one thing he doesn't do is get bored and stop playing / paying attention. He's there to play and treats the last round as seriously as the first. You go guy 
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 17:04
|
|
|
Explaining the rules to other people is usually all it takes for me to be the biggest threat. Especially if it's not my game.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 17:06
|
|
|
UrbanLabyrinth posted:How did this work? Eight players, base game. At the start of round 5, A is handed one of those "look at the loyalty card of a player next to you" plot cards to use on B, which he does. B looks at A expectantly, A says "He's a spy." B says "Well I'm exposed then, gently caress this game," tosses his "vote no" card face-up in front of him, and walks off to get a drink. The thing was that neither A nor B was above suspicion at that point -- the natural thing to do would be for B to counter-accuse A of being a spy, not to confess, there's nothing to be gained from confessing. And B doesn't have a reputation for losing his temper in games, ever. What he does have a reputation for is being sneaky and backstabby, often in weird counterintuitive ways (e.g. pretending to be pro-Cylon as a pro-human Cylon Leader) and with varying degrees of success. So his ragequit wasn't real, but a trick. A and B must both be spies, and B must have sacrificed himself to make A look innocent, instead of dragging them both down into the mud together with a counter-accusation. ...is what I argued. The rest of the group agreed, and excluded A from the final team, eventually putting me on the team instead. But A was innocent, I was a spy, and B's real plan was for one of us to pick up on and make that argument.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 17:36
|
|
|
Why would A announce B is a spy at the beginning of the game if they were in fact both spies? 
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 17:40
|
|
|
Mister Sinewave posted:Why would A announce B is a spy at the beginning of the game if they were in fact both spies? It wasn't the beginning of the game, it was the beginning of the final round. At that point only one spy needs to make it to the last team to end the game, and only one innocent needs to be kicked off. If a spy accuses another spy, it makes it look like they probably have opposite teams, so it's less likely that both will be excluded; if a spy says another spy is innocent, they're more likely to have the same team and more likely to end up both excluded. That was the theory, anyhow. In our group's meta there's no one answer to "what does a spy say when inspecting someone," and it's assumed that a spy's answer will vary based on the circumstances. A verdict of "yeah he's clean" would be parsed as "If A is innocent then B is innocent" (or equivalently "If B is guilty then A is guilty") rather than as "B is more likely to be innocent", so that wouldn't necessarily be enough to get B added to the last team.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 17:51
|
|
|
I get it now, it's a clever ploy that worked and that's wonderful.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 17:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 09:56 |
|
|
Ugh this is why I don't play Resistance.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 18:07
|
|