|
Tekopo posted:Mafia de Cuba is really bad, don't buy it, more explanation when I actually have time but it has a broken strategy and downtime on it is awful. I'm curious, a guy brought it to our local meetup and raved over it but it never got any play. Is the strategy for the first person to trash the CIA agent and then everyone who can take the character chips?
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 23:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 23:36 |
|
|
AMooseDoesStuff posted:I'm curious, a guy brought it to our local meetup and raved over it but it never got any play. Is the strategy for the first person to trash the CIA agent and then everyone who can take the character chips?
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 23:12
|
|
|
SilverMike posted:Is Dark Moon worth a go? BSG but shorter looks like it could be good. PBP here. We tried it and were underwhelmed. (Well-run game, though.)
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 23:17
|
|
|
Echophonic posted:Dark Moon's a bit different in execution than Battlestar Galactica. It's not a game of slowly grinding the humans down like BSG, it's a game of slow-playing and winning via an abrupt shank. You have to take on some risk to set things up so you can do that, which is where the distrust comes in. The problem is that Dark Moon achieves its length by taking out everything that makes BSG good. Relevant quote: Broken Loose posted:BSG Express had a lot of issues, and Dark Moon doesn't really fix any of them. It cuts down on the playtime of BSG by sacrificing most everything that made the game worthwhile. Additionally, the rules have lots of holes, some MASSIVE holes, and then the massive holes are covered up by the manual saying "don't play with cheaters" like it means something.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 23:18
|
|
|
Gimnbo posted:Don't forget to get a copy for yourself. I might have to after hearing everyones reviews. My local card/games shop sold it for only $17. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 23:21
|
|
|
I still maintain that I've never played with or known anyone who was perfectly normal and fine to game with who suddenly turned into some kind of sociopathic cheater the moment the opportunity presented itself. That really does sound like a problem that lies with the people one games with and not "well there's a dice screen, you can't expect people NOT to cheat when they have one of those."
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 23:25
|
|
|
I have no interest in Dark Moon, and I'm pretty convinced it's a turd, but on the subject of cheating are most ONUW and Resistance style games also Bad because there's nothing stopping someone from doing illegal actions while everyone else has their eyes closed?
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 23:30
|
|
|
Scyther posted:I have no interest in Dark Moon, and I'm pretty convinced it's a turd, but on the subject of cheating are most ONUW and Resistance style games also Bad because there's nothing stopping someone from doing illegal actions while everyone else has their eyes closed? I mean, it's possible to cheat in plenty of games if you really want to. "Don't play with cheating assholes" seems like pretty reasonable advice to me tbh.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 23:32
|
|
|
Most games don't make it trivially easy to cheat and get away with it though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 23:34
|
|
|
Has anyone thought about using masks to help solve the emoting problem for Codenames? I think it could actually be pretty fun to have goofy masks to hide expressions and contribute to the trash talking.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 23:43
|
|
|
Scyther posted:Most games don't make it trivially easy to cheat and get away with it though. Yeah, so? The problem is that it's still ultimately the decision of the people you play with to go "yep, time to cheat at board games." Every time this subject comes up I feel like I'm taking crazy pills because I happen to think "I can't trust the people I play games with not to cheat unless the game designer ensures that they have no choice but to play honestly" is kind of weirdly dysfunctional.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 23:46
|
|
|
Kai Tave posted:Yeah, so? The problem is that it's still ultimately the decision of the people you play with to go "yep, time to cheat at board games." Every time this subject comes up I feel like I'm taking crazy pills because I happen to think "I can't trust the people I play games with not to cheat unless the game designer ensures that they have no choice but to play honestly" is kind of weirdly dysfunctional. Yeah, that's kind of the side I fall on. I just avoid bringing up Dark Moon anymore because this conversation pops up every time. Games with hidden information and/or that rely on you accurately reporting something are always going to be vulnerable and it's kind of up to you if you trust your play group or not.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 23:54
|
|
|
Dark Moon's problems go way beyond that, though. I mean, one thing BL briefly touched upon is that there just isn't enough game there - the range of actions available to you is incredibly small, and the 'optimal' play is always tremendously obvious. As a traitor game it's really easy to pick out the traitor.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 00:10
|
|
|
I got to play Space Alert today. Today was good.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 00:13
|
|
|
I understand the high-level criticism leveled at Dark Moon. It's fine on paper, but a lot of it doesn't really hash out through play, in my experience. It's rarely obvious who the traitors are once you've played it a few times. If they are obvious, the traitors are playing badly, quite frankly. It took us a few games to find the right balance of slow-play and aggression, but now that everyone has it, the game is a lot tenser. Also, a lot of the criticisms being leveled at Dark Moon apply pretty well to BSG. BSG's rules are a mess. We have a thread here dedicated mostly to loving with house rules to fix it. In addition, what someone should be doing is just as obvious. We had a game on this forum where someone was outed as a Cylon for using the science lab on turn 1, that's how obviously non-ideal it was.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 00:22
|
|
|
Stelas posted:Dark Moon's problems go way beyond that, though. I mean, one thing BL briefly touched upon is that there just isn't enough game there - the range of actions available to you is incredibly small, and the 'optimal' play is always tremendously obvious. As a traitor game it's really easy to pick out the traitor. I've played the game a few more times since the PBP and each game has gone one of two ways- the infected get lucky and start a life-support death spiral, or they spend the whole game waiting for "the moment" to reveal that never comes. It's fast, simple, and has the itsjustfun factor of rolling a ton of dice that just barely works as a backdrop while drinking. And really at that point you should just be playing Codenames. Hell I may have to run a PBP version of Codenames to atone for the Dark Moon game.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 00:36
|
|
|
Stelas posted:Dark Moon's problems go way beyond that, though. I mean, one thing BL briefly touched upon is that there just isn't enough game there - the range of actions available to you is incredibly small, and the 'optimal' play is always tremendously obvious. As a traitor game it's really easy to pick out the traitor. Yeah and that's fine, I've got no beef with any of his other criticisms, I just just think that one's a weird one to hold up as a failure of game design. This isn't some Games Workshopian "RAI vs RAW" thing, it's "I can't trust the people I play with not to cheat, but it's the game's fault for enabling them."
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 00:40
|
|
|
Echophonic posted:We had a game on this forum where someone was outed as a Cylon for using the science lab on turn 1, that's how obviously non-ideal it was. I accept that, and I think that's a problem with BSG once everyone is very used to the game - but the difference for me is that people worked out the science lab is suboptimal after repeated, regular plays. Similar tells in Dark Moon took us maybe a couple of turns tops to work out.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 01:00
|
|
|
Look, it's solvable on the game end. Good rules make it impossible to cheat. Bad rules make it possible to cheat without getting caught. If you take a game with Bad Rules and then apply other bad things, like a sizeable luck factor, then you motivate otherwise potentially honest people into cheating. Like my example, where if a player rolled 5 dice in a row and got 5+'s on every single die, they might feel that the game "owed" them a statistically probable roll and fudge it in such a way that it happened. It wouldn't be a thing of Some Cheating rear end in a top hat coming into the game and trying to ruin it, it would be a regular person being justifiably upset at the game screwing them over and (wrongly) taking matters into their own hands. If you were running late to work and hit 6 red lights in a row, you might be inclined to speed when you see the next light turn yellow instead of slowing down-- it's the same psychology, the same logic. I can't believe I have to repeat this, but a Cheater as a type of person does not exist. This is identical to gun control arguments where a pro-gun person makes claim to the existence of a Killer as a type of person. Nobody is a Killer. People kill out of passion, distress, or profit, but nobody just walks around slaying people like they're GTA NPCs. By divorcing the psychology from the action, you dehumanize people and reduce the amount of circumstantial responsibility that society holds in preventing bad things from happening. Any statement of "don't play with Cheaters" is illegitimate for this reason. Cheaters literally don't exist. The statement "don't play with Cheaters" is always, 100%, always used as a lovely excuse for lovely rules with gigantic holes in them, and the discussion that follows about whether or not it's the game's fault always seems to overshadow the fact that said games have lovely rules in the first place. This is 1 of a dozen reasons why Dark Moon is a bad game, it's not a minor reason, it's absolutely trivial to fix (after all, it's a half-assed reinterpretation of BSG's Skill Check mechanics which are impossible to cheat at and thus don't have to issue "Don't play with Cheaters" warnings, would you look at that?), and it is absolutely not victim-blaming for me to shift responsibility upward in this situation.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 02:01
|
|
|
Scyther posted:I have no interest in Dark Moon, and I'm pretty convinced it's a turd, but on the subject of cheating are most ONUW and Resistance style games also Bad because there's nothing stopping someone from doing illegal actions while everyone else has their eyes closed? This is a pretty good example I'd like to address. In Resistance, it's impossible to cheat without alerting the other players since all eyes closed portions have a player with their eyes open who can confirm that things are going fairly. The only conceivable cheat would be to use this moment to look at players' cards if you were the only player with eyes open, but to do so in the tiny amount of time allotted without getting caught is so difficult and runs such low odds of being profitable that it is never attempted. Additionally, there is no large motivating factor where the players are feeling like the game is removing agency from them or treating them unfairly, so there's no real drive to want to figure out a way to attempt it. In ONUW, players are expected to do their specific actions, sometimes without gaining information, unsupervised, while everybody else has their eyes closed. This is a big hole that leads to potential cheating for the players that shouldn't have information but still have card manipulation. However, like Resistance, the other motivating factors are gone and thus players don't feel a desire to go against the constraints of the game to do this. Dark Moon provides constant opportunities to cheat, every turn. Every turn. And the luck factor in the game is there-- there is the very real possibility of multiple moments in the game where a player is forced to do something they do not want to do because the dice hosed them over. I'm not saying that I would do this, but I understand the psychology involved and recognize that the game actively increases the desperation and frustration of the players while simultaneously providing these cheating opportunities. If you put a person in a room with a gun and another person, nobody's going to go for the gun. If the other person kept punching them in the face, that might change. If the other person kept punching them in the face for a few minutes straight and then turning their back for a minute, that might change even further. Potentially good people can be motivated to do potentially bad things when they get frustrated or feel that the game or karma "owes" them something. That's why cheating as a problem never comes up in ONUW discussion.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 02:14
|
|
|
Echophonic posted:Also, a lot of the criticisms being leveled at Dark Moon apply pretty well to BSG. BSG's rules are a mess. As much as I love BSG, it's reached Arkham Horror level of bolt-on cruft and lovely rules. I'd love to believe they could do a 2.0 revision to create something better but I don't know if they brand has that much pull anymore, especially now that they have Star Wars to milk.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 02:16
|
|
|
Crackbone posted:As much as I love BSG, it's reached Arkham Horror level of bolt-on cruft and lovely rules. I'd love to believe they could do a 2.0 revision to create something better but I don't know if they brand has that much pull anymore, especially now that they have Star Wars to milk. I'm with you on that. I'd love a version of BSG that cleaned off all the rough edges.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 02:19
|
|
|
A person speeding through an intersection because they feel they're "entitled" to do so is a self-serving rear end in a top hat, sorry. Same with someone who decides to cheat because man the dice are screwing me and I DESERVE THIS DAMNIT. I don't give a poo poo if 90% of the time someone is pleasant and reasonable and then decides to act like an rear end in a top hat because contrived circumstances and tortured analogies permit them a self-serving excuse. That is the quintessential definition of rear end in a top hat behavior whether they're driving recklessly or cheating at boardgames.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 02:27
|
|
|
"Okay I dont want to alarm the rebel fleet but one of you... IS SECRETLY A SITH LORD!" Or reverse it and you're all playing imperial grunts trying to get the death star to alderaan without getting blown up by filthy rebel infiltrators. Synthbuttrange fucked around with this message at 02:35 on Nov 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 02:32
|
|
|
Kai Tave posted:A person speeding through an intersection because they feel they're "entitled" to do so is a self-serving rear end in a top hat, sorry. Same with someone who decides to cheat because man the dice are screwing me and I DESERVE THIS DAMNIT. I don't give a poo poo if 90% of the time someone is pleasant and reasonable and then decides to act like an rear end in a top hat because contrived circumstances and tortured analogies permit them a self-serving excuse. That is the quintessential definition of rear end in a top hat behavior whether they're driving recklessly or cheating at boardgames. I never said they weren't wrong. In fact, I outright state that it's wrong. I'm just saying that the situation motivated them to do such, and if the situation didn't motivate them then they wouldn't have done it. You didn't intend to speed through the intersection when you got up that morning. You were motivated to do so. By removing the motivation and opportunity, we can prevent the problem before it is even conceived. edit: By pretending that you are above such things as getting frustrated at a reasonably frustrating situation, then claiming that you are a perfect angel who wouldn't be tempted to act out of line under those circumstances*, you are only announcing that you are not subject to basic human psychology and thus some sort of sociopath. *Even worse, because cheated play in Dark Moon by my example would actually look less suspicious than honest play would. Broken Loose fucked around with this message at 02:41 on Nov 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 02:35
|
|
|
This thread gets weird sometimes but a big post about how there are no Cheaters exactly -- just normal people who engage in selfish rear end in a top hat 'good for me bad for you and everyone else' behavior not because they are cackling villains but just because they feel entitled or justified (because I mean sure you're not wrong about actual cackling villains being a rarity. But some people just have learned unhealthy ways of interacting with others, like engaging in selfish behavior that they feel is justified - and to some of us that's what a cheater (selfish rear end in a top hat) is
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 02:47
|
|
|
Broken Loose posted:I never said they weren't wrong. In fact, I outright state that it's wrong. I'm just saying that the situation motivated them to do such, and if the situation didn't motivate them then they wouldn't have done it. If we're to the point of the discussion where you're going to accuse people who disagree with you of being sociopaths then you can go gently caress yourself. At no point have I claimed to be a perfect angel, this is you getting pissy that I disagree that "the motivation existed" is an onus solely on game designers and not on people to exercise some basic restraint of their selfish rear end in a top hat impulses.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 03:04
|
|
|
gently caress exploding kittens. I hate people
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 03:19
|
|
|
Tekopo posted:Mafia de Cuba is really bad, don't buy it, more explanation when I actually have time but it has a broken strategy and downtime on it is awful. Woops. You should've posted that sooner. Is there anyway to fix it with some houserules?
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 03:29
|
|
|
goodness posted:gently caress exploding kittens. I hate people But the box meows! That's fun, right? 
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 03:30
|
|
|
Echophonic posted:But the box meows! That's fun, right? I never thought I would have to play this poo poo game, but now I'm stuck somewhere and surrounded by a circle playing it. Then I die on my first draw and its 20m later with the game still going. Wtf. Honestly it was cool that the box meowed and my kitten ran to it and tried to get in the box
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 03:32
|
|
|
goodness posted:I never thought I would have to play this poo poo game, but now I'm stuck somewhere and surrounded by a circle playing it. Then I die on my first draw and its 20m later with the game still going. Wtf. Your cat has bad taste in board games, but at least now you know and can get a better one.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 03:41
|
|
|
SynthOrange posted:Or reverse it and you're all playing imperial grunts trying to get the death star to alderaan without getting blown up by filthy rebel infiltrators. Get Asmodee to have FFG cut Vlaada a check
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 03:49
|
|
|
When I got my copy of Orleans, I opened the box and as I started reading the rules, my cat got into the box top and started reading the rules with me. Good cat, IMO.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 03:50
|
|
|
quote:If we're to the point of the discussion where you're going to accuse people who disagree with you of being sociopaths then you can go gently caress yourself. At no point have I claimed to be a perfect angel, this is you getting pissy that I disagree that "the motivation existed" is an onus solely on game designers and not on people to exercise some basic restraint of their selfish rear end in a top hat impulses. I hate Broken Loose as much as anyone, but I think his general point is right here - it's a positive property for a game to make cheating (or suspicion of cheating, which often is more of a problem than actual cheating) less likely. And his argument, that "propensity for cheating" is a continuum, rather than a clear line between "cheaters" and "people who would never cheat", seems pretty sensible. He's not saying you're actually a sociopath, he's saying that you're not being honest about your own capacity for cheating (which, even if it's small, probably exists at some level above zero). I mean, I certainly wouldn't think of myself as a "cheater" - but I cheated in XCOM the other day. I had accidentally put the wrong soldier on a mission, and I swapped it out a couple seconds after the window to legally do so had past ("done" had been clicked on the app). Someone here might think I'm terrible for doing this, that I'm cheating myself, or whatever... but I imagine lots of others are thinking "well, that's not really cheating"/"who cares, it's a co-op" or whatever. I made a snap judgment that having the "right" dude on the mission would make for a better game for everyone, and so I broke the rules. On the other hand, this particular game mechanic (hidden rolling) doesn't seem like a problem to me; you'd have to be pretty far along the "propensity for cheating" spectrum to straight-up change a hidden dice roll. I find cheating to be more of a problem in a design if it can happen more "accidentally" - stuff like, "oh I forgot I had to pay an extra cube if these convoluted circumstances are met" or whatever; I think that's when cheating is the most tempting, and also when false accusations are most likely. It may sound weird, but I've seen this happen a few times in 7 Wonders, where an argument starts because someone (for example) mishandles a cost or restriction or builds a duplicate card (probably because they weren't thinking) and gets accused of cheating. Like so many other things, how much of an issue this is is going to depend on the group you play with. For my group, something like a hidden roll mechanic would be 100% fine... but if you play with lots of different people (even mostly reasonable ones), having the potential for hidden cheating can be a real problem - and not so much because someone could cheat and win, but because it can end with hard feelings when someone gets salty, maybe not thinking 100% straight, and starts throwing out accusations. To summarize: this isn't usually going to be an unforgivable problem in a game, and sometimes there's not really a simple way to avoid it in a design.. but in general a game is better if it can steer around the problem as much as possible. I look forward to having this discussion again in 100 pages. jmzero fucked around with this message at 04:20 on Nov 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 04:17
|
|
|
There but for the grace of God cheat I.Chill la Chill posted:When I got my copy of Orleans, I opened the box and as I started reading the rules, my cat got into the box top and started reading the rules with me. Good cat, IMO. AMooseDoesStuff posted:I'm curious, a guy brought it to our local meetup and raved over it but it never got any play. Is the strategy for the first person to trash the CIA agent and then everyone who can take the character chips?
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 04:26
|
|
|
jmzero posted:I hate Broken Loose as much as anyone, but I think his general point is right here - "You're not WRONG Walter...." Always cracks me up when people need to clarify their beef with people before agreeing with them. The Dude Abides.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 04:29
|
|
|
I will cheat like a mother fucker in lovely games if they'll make them end quicker. That makes me a good person, right?
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 04:29
|
|
|
Kai Tave posted:Yeah, so? The problem is that it's still ultimately the decision of the people you play with to go "yep, time to cheat at board games." Every time this subject comes up I feel like I'm taking crazy pills because I happen to think "I can't trust the people I play games with not to cheat unless the game designer ensures that they have no choice but to play honestly" is kind of weirdly dysfunctional. In addition to opportunistic cheating, it's also really really common for people to make rules or arithmetic mistakes in games. Those mistakes get caught way less in Roll for the Galaxy than in Race, for example. I'm reasonably certain that people are more likely to err in their own interests, because advancing their position is what they want to do. In Dominion, if people just announce their coin totals instead of at least flashing their hands, we get more 7-cost Provinces. (A silver and 5 copper just looks like so much money). Well, showing money we still get the 7-cost provinces - but somebody else will point it out and it gets corrected, no harm done.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 04:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 23:36 |
|
|
This has a lot to do with player behavior in general, but mistake/cheating seems more common in games where there's a strict bad-good spectrum and people aren't really paying attention to other people's boards. In Roll it's pretty easy to double-check if people made mistakes or not assuming they didn't reroll their dice, because powers that change dice rolls just slide dice around and we always take a moment to verify that everything's legal when dice are revealed (especially if someone is new). It's often <10 seconds to "fix" a misplay in some reasonable manner, and the rules are intuitive enough that people who've played 1 game through shouldn't be making mistakes anymore unless they have like 5 reassign powers.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 05:12
|
|
