|
I'm currently in an FCM game on there, it's definitely async. Got room for 1 more? I've not played yet (other than being in setup in the other game >_>) but I'm good on the rules.
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2016 18:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 19:19 |
|
|
enigmahfc posted:(not really AP, because she is always paying attention) Taking ages thinking through your turn is exactly what AP is. Not paying attention is "being rude" I guess, or at least unengaged https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analysis_paralysis
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2016 18:59
|
|
|
Andarel posted:I'm currently in an FCM game on there, it's definitely async. Got room for 1 more? I've not played yet (other than being in setup in the other game >_>) but I'm good on the rules. We're full up. Sorry.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2016 18:59
|
|
|
Oldstench posted:We're full up. Sorry. Not a problem. My physical copy should arrive tomorrow so that'll be handy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2016 19:00
|
|
|
I'm usually willing to play any board game with my group, but the games I will magically come down with a contagious cold with are Sherrif of Nottingham, Dungeon Quest... and maybe Shadows Over Camelot I just... cant play those games, too loving awful 
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2016 19:04
|
|
|
Dre2Dee2 posted:I'm usually willing to play any board game with my group, but the games I will magically come down with a contagious cold with are Sherrif of Nottingham, Dungeon Quest... and maybe Shadows Over Camelot Sheriff isn't that bad, it's a fun ice breaker and goes fairly quickly. Even better if/when people get into character and don't play it like it's some sort of championship. That said, if it becomes a staple of evenings or something that game nights are built around I'd get pissed off but I'd rather play a lot of quick games of Sheriff rather than tedious ones of Dead of Winter or Betrayal. Any game gets stale if overplayed.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2016 19:42
|
|
|
T-Bone posted:Some people rate Paths of Glory as the greatest wargame ever but it's pretty heavy (and long). The Grizzled is a light WW1 themed co-op that came out recently. I've heard mixed things but it might be worth checking out. I noticed Paths of Glory since I looked up what BGG had for WW1 games that were ranked highly/popular. It might be a bit involved to start out with, but I dunno how much of an experience he might want. I've seen The Grizzled played in person and it isn't really quite what I'm looking for (if anything, this is still just an idea). Although TS would probably be a good choice in general, I think he is fixated on WWI more than a game being great. But it isn't a bad suggestion and maybe I'll steer him towards that in the hopes that I can grab a copy since I've never tried it. Oldstench posted:I've heard great things about The Great War. It uses the Commands & Colors system which is easy to learn, even for new gamers. This looks excellent, I'm reading about it now.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2016 19:57
|
|
|
Dr. VooDoo posted:Are there any economic/market games out there in which you are able to buy/sell/trade stock of other players that are tied to their performance in the game? One of the modules of 504 is stocks, and it works like this: As a primary module (victory condition), you buy and sell 5 sub-companies which play 5 rounds of the game and try to wind up with the most cash. As a secondary module (income condition), you buy and sell 5 sub-companies which play the game through to completion, and score each of your final shares based on the company's final VP. As a tertiary module (flavor condition) everybody is their own company, and scoring works like it does in the secondary module. You can sell your own shares for cash or buy ones other people have sold.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2016 20:50
|
|
|
Indolent Bastard posted:The game changes as you play it. After 12 or so sessions you are done and the game cannot (easily) be played again. This is more true of Pandemic Legacy than it is of Risk. After 15 games of Risk Legacy, the victory log on the board is full and it's likely most of the major board modifications have been made and module packs opened, but there may still be minor modifications left to make, and the victory conditions don't change drastically. The game is very much still playable as its own custom set, especially since one of the modules introduces a kind of handicapping mechanism to account for variations in faction power and board state.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2016 20:59
|
|
|
You guys had better watch out, Rutibex is designing games in the Roguelikes thread now. He could be coming for your boardgames next!
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2016 21:01
|
|
|
Radioactive Toy posted:You guys had better watch out, Rutibex is designing games in the Roguelikes thread now. He could be coming for your boardgames next! Final Fantasy R has many boardgaming inspirations, but I felt it wasn't close enough to a board game to pimp here. If you want to play a board game designed by me you can try Feirmeoir: https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/175694/feirmeoir
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2016 21:25
|
|
|
Masters of Venice is a great economics game with stocks.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2016 21:29
|
|
|
Ayn Randi posted:multiplayer magic is terrible, i lust for a LCG-formatted rerelease of richard garfields magnum opus jyhad/vampire:TES which is the best multiplayer ccg ever made Netrunner came back from the grave, I could see V:TM coming back as well. Here's hoping that its FFG and an LCG instead of WOTC and a TCG/CCG. enigmahfc posted:I dodged a bullet this past Saturday. Arabian Nights is really fun if you have a sense of humor and imagination, I'm really sorry your inner child is dead and you can only play hardcore euro games with wooden toggles  Scyther posted:This is not a defense of Tales Of The Arabian Nights at all, you did dodge a miserable experience, but it's basically mandatory to play with no more than 4 people and to ignore the actual victory conditions and just set a timer for like two hours or something. Also if people can join in, people can also tap out. You don't have to play it to the finish; you don't have to find out who the winner is. Its not always about who is the 'winner'. Zaphod42 fucked around with this message at 21:45 on Feb 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2016 21:38
|
|
|
Zaphod42 posted:Arabian Nights is really fun if you have a sense of humor and imagination, I'm really sorry your inner child is dead and you can only play hardcore euro games with wooden toggles Any game can be fun with a sense of humor and imagination, though. You could render every turn of Dominion into an elaborate narrative on each individual's developing kingdom. Settlers of Catan is a historical documentary on the development of the nation of Catan and the leaders who wheeled and dealed to exploit its resources. Quantum is a space opera where the ships are literally giant dice. Go into what each spy is accomplishing and how their mistakes cost them between each round of Codenames. Heck, you could have a world of limitless possibilities with an ordinary deck of cards but I'm too lazy to bullshit stuff for that. e: Don't know if that was sarcastic or sincere, my bad if the former.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2016 21:48
|
|
|
Zaphod42 posted:Netrunner came back from the grave, I could see V:TM coming back as well. Richard Garfield said in an AMA a year and a half ago that FFG was going to reboot VteS as an LCG. Christian Petersen immediately clarified that FFG had looked into it, but passed.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2016 21:50
|
|
|
To be fair Tales gets way too long with 5 players, especially if you don't keep the points total low or you get some lovely condition where you can't do anything for a few turns. It is a fun game once in awhile, but 3 players is nice so everyone is involved in some way, or at most 4 so you only sit out once. There's only so much getting hosed by djinn and disguised viziers I can take before it gets to be tedious.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2016 21:51
|
|
|
Zaphod42 posted:Arabian Nights is really fun if you have a sense of humor and imagination, I'm really sorry your inner child is dead and you can only play hardcore euro games with wooden toggles If people can drop in and out of a game and it not really effect the outcome, it's not the game for me. I don't even consider that a game. I know some people really like 'story generating' games, but I can sit around with friends and tell jokes and stories on my own without the need to cross reference a book the thickness of my Operations Management textbook.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2016 22:05
|
|
|
Mega64 posted:Any game can be fun with a sense of humor and imagination, though. You could render every turn of Dominion into an elaborate narrative on each individual's developing kingdom. Settlers of Catan is a historical documentary on the development of the nation of Catan and the leaders who wheeled and dealed to exploit its resources. Quantum is a space opera where the ships are literally giant dice. Go into what each spy is accomplishing and how their mistakes cost them between each round of Codenames. Heck, you could have a world of limitless possibilities with an ordinary deck of cards but I'm too lazy to bullshit stuff for that. That is true, and I do have the saying "even a bad game can be good with friends", but I think there's still key differences between "bad game you're enjoying with your friends because you're drunk and you're making fun of it and coming up with your own stuff" and "game that isn't super competitive but facilitates hilarious encounters". Poopy Palpy posted:Richard Garfield said in an AMA a year and a half ago that FFG was going to reboot VteS as an LCG. Christian Petersen immediately clarified that FFG had looked into it, but passed. Laaaame. Although supposedly some pro magic player tried to get the rights to netrunner from WOTC and it fell through, but then a couple years later FFG picked it up. So maybe they could still negotiate something someday? enigmahfc posted:If people can drop in and out of a game and it not really effect the outcome, it's not the game for me. I don't even consider that a game. I know some people really like 'story generating' games, but I can sit around with friends and tell jokes and stories on my own without the need to cross reference a book the thickness of my Operations Management textbook. To each his own, but I really think if you only play games to win you're missing out on some fun times. Like yeah you can sit around and tell jokes with your friends, but are all your friends super creative? Some people need help. I have some friends who can't handle full on roleplaying games but they can play talisman or arabian nights and have fun. I mean that's like saying "why watch a movie when you can just joke around with your friends." Sometimes somebody putting work into it pays off! Zaphod42 fucked around with this message at 22:22 on Feb 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2016 22:19
|
|
|
The problem that I have with TotAN is that if I'm making the effort anyway, I might as well actually play a Roleplaying game instead and have total freedom of expression instead of being constrained. I like choose your own adventure books but they get boring fast.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2016 22:44
|
|
|
Zaphod42 posted:Laaaame. Although supposedly some pro magic player tried to get the rights to netrunner from WOTC and it fell through, but then a couple years later FFG picked it up. So maybe they could still negotiate something someday? FFG aren't interested in negotiating for it. They already could have done, but didn't. Their statement is that they already have enough LCGs out there and the market is saturated, which is why COC:LCG and Warhammer: Invasion were quietly killed for Conquest and Star Wars respectively when those games proved financially viable. It's probable that LOTR will come to an end next year or the year after, depending on whether FFG want to wait a year on Legend of the Five Rings or are willing to gamble.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2016 22:44
|
|
|
Babylon 5 needs an LCG badly too : (
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2016 22:51
|
|
|
enigmahfc posted:If people can drop in and out of a game and it not really effect the outcome, it's not the game for me. With some games people leaving is a pretty easy fix. Eldritch horror, just flip the reference card over and continue on accordingly. Argent even has rules that say 'Well, you probably shouldn't do this but take two rooms out and carry on'. With other games, one person leaving might as well make people just go 'We'll calculate the winner now'. But the fact of the matter is, sometimes life comes up. And sometimes people just aren't enjoying the game. I play most of my games in a pub in public, so it's a meetup sort of affair. And if someone is having a dire time with the game, I'd much rather they left and went and enjoyed themsleves than had a lovely time.  I'm aware that might not've been what you were saying, but still it's way better to just drop out of a lovely time than to demand everyone stick till the end.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2016 22:57
|
|
|
Tekopo posted:The problem that I have with TotAN is that if I'm making the effort anyway, I might as well actually play a Roleplaying game instead and have total freedom of expression instead of being constrained. I like choose your own adventure books but they get boring fast. Yeah for sure, but like I said I have lots of friends who kinda panic when they're told they can do "anything" and end up either doing nothing or doing the same thing over and over and over again. Most people think roleplaying is super nerdy and it scares them subconsciously so they just really go out of their way to avoid it. And then even if you can get them to do it, if they're inexperienced they'll be going out of character all the time, it can feel like herding cats. I love CYOA too but its single-player and you quickly see most of the possible paths and then its usually not worth re-treading just to find the one or two options you haven't done yet. AMooseDoesStuff posted:I'm aware that might not've been what you were saying, but still it's way better to just drop out of a lovely time than to demand everyone stick till the end. Agreed. And if everybody but one person is having fun, forcing the game to end just to declare a winner seems silly. It depends upon the setting too though, if you're all over at Joe's house and Joe finds the game boring it'd be pretty lame to just deal him out of the game and keep playing. But given the previous scenario of seeing a game you're not sure about and deciding to just gently caress off, pissing off your wife, rather than participate and maybe leave early... IDK. Probably not the call I'd make personally. Zaphod42 fucked around with this message at 23:19 on Feb 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2016 23:17
|
|
|
Lets not forget that she was only pissed until it became evident that she had been prevented from enternal into an eternal purgatory.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2016 23:23
|
|
|
The General posted:Babylon 5 needs an LCG badly too : ( Ah, the old B5 CCG made by Precedence, several shoe boxes of which I still have 
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2016 23:27
|
|
|
Zaphod42 posted:To each his own, but I really think if you only play games to win you're missing out on some fun times. This to me is a common argument that I think has a major flaw: the two are not mutually exclusive. You're not EITHER playing to win OR having fun; for some (most?) people, playing to win IS having fun.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 00:26
|
|
|
Depends on the game though. If it's new 'Not get my rear end kicked, figure out how it works' is good enough.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 00:35
|
|
|
Merauder posted:This to me is a common argument that I think has a major flaw: the two are not mutually exclusive. You're not EITHER playing to win OR having fun; for some (most?) people, playing to win IS having fun. In fact, I would go as far as to argue if your game is not fun to play to win, you haven't really made a good game. This is not to say that not winning is not fun, but if your game has a victory condition, striving to achieve it should not be contrary to enjoying the experience. This feels reasonable to me.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 00:37
|
|
|
The Race for the Galaxy AI is kicking my rear end most of the time. At least I'm sort of getting better. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 00:37
|
|
|
Characteristics of Games - Page 176 posted:Note that we do not include fun as an item in the above list [of in-game rewards], because the term is too broad to be useful as a specific reward category. For us, the term fun is simply a casual synonym for enjoyment or in-game reward. If a game is said to be "fun," the question to ask is "in what way?" - that is, what rewards is the game offering?
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 00:57
|
|
|
I enjoy playing games because I like figuring out systems and applying thought/strategy to Those rules. Winning isn't important; having a set of rules where my skill makes a difference does. Playing to win is what you should be doing if you are playing a competitive game. That doesn't mean you have to be an isufferable twat doing so, which is what most people mean when they say "playing to win".
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 01:08
|
|
|
Characteristics of Games is a fun read
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 01:11
|
|
|
Crackbone posted:I enjoy playing games because I like figuring out systems and applying thought/strategy to Those rules. Winning isn't important; having a set of rules where my skill makes a difference does. So the housing shortage Monopoly strategy... is that winning by being an insufferable twat? What makes that a valid or not valid strategy? Same question for other games, where a winning strategy can also ruin the game for others or devolve into a slog.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 01:13
|
|
|
Vivian Darkbloom posted:The Race for the Galaxy AI is kicking my rear end most of the time. At least I'm sort of getting better. I have only been able to beat this thing a few times, but I think it was only luck
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 01:14
|
|
|
Merauder posted:This to me is a common argument that I think has a major flaw: the two are not mutually exclusive. You're not EITHER playing to win OR having fun; for some (most?) people, playing to win IS having fun. Nah, its not "play to win vs play for fun", that was never the idea. Its "play to win and have fun winning" versus "play just to enjoy the game with your friends and have fun at the outcome". This is why Magic has concepts for different player types, the old Timmy, Spike, Johnny. If you only play as a Spike you're missing out IMO. I'm not saying don't play as a Spike ever, I'm just saying try to also play other ways on occasion. SuccinctAndPunchy posted:In fact, I would go as far as to argue if your game is not fun to play to win, you haven't really made a good game. This is not to say that not winning is not fun, but if your game has a victory condition, striving to achieve it should not be contrary to enjoying the experience. This feels reasonable to me. This is also a misunderstanding. Nobody is saying the game is un-fun when played to win but fun when you play to intentionally lose or something. Like, consider a game of pictionary with friends. You can definitely play it to win it, but you can enjoy it and have a good time even if you're just playing to see what happens and not really caring if you win or lose, and most people aren't exactly practicing strategies in-between rounds or games. Some goons are going to say that makes pictionary an inherently bad game, but I disagree. Fun party games like ugg tect aren't about finding the optimal play strategy, they're about goofy good times. unpronounceable posted:Note that we do not include fun as an item in the above list [of in-game rewards], because the term is too broad to be useful as a specific reward category. For us, the term fun is simply a casual synonym for enjoyment or in-game reward. If a game is said to be "fun," the question to ask is "in what way?" - that is, what rewards is the game offering? Yeah that's kinda what I'm getting at. Multiple types of fun. Winning and getting good is a definite type of fun (Spike) but there's other funs too. Zaphod42 fucked around with this message at 01:22 on Feb 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 01:16
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:So the housing shortage Monopoly strategy... is that winning by being an insufferable twat? What makes that a valid or not valid strategy? Same question for other games, where a winning strategy can also ruin the game for others or devolve into a slog. I think we call that a badly designed/play-tested game.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 01:25
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:So the housing shortage Monopoly strategy... is that winning by being an insufferable twat? What makes that a valid or not valid strategy? Same question for other games, where a winning strategy can also ruin the game for others or devolve into a slog. If the game has direct conflict, or the potential to make moves that are detrimental to someone else, this also depends on how the game is designed, but I would still contest that all strategies should be open for exploration. Being an insufferable twat for me is an attitude problem and not necessarily a 'how you play the game' problem. Mostly because I don't mind someone completely shafting me in a game, as long as he's not a dick about it. The best example is when i had that TTA game where the actions of a player made me concede. The guy apologised about it and I was like "no dude, that was the strategically correct option".
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 01:25
|
|
|
I was with you until this, Zaphod42 posted:If you only play as a Spike you're missing out IMO. Where once again I have to say that it's a false dichotomy to say so, and it's unfair to Spike players to presume that they would have more fun if they branched out and played a game in ways they aren't naturally inclined to. I come from a TCG background specifically so I have a lot of opinion on this topic, since so many players (especially in local-level environments) do seem to vilify "spikes" or people who play competitively by shouting "This is just for fun, geez! Why are you trying so hard?!". For them, they have fun playing to win, and are not wrong in doing so. You're right that there are some game experiences which are in fact just intended to illicit a positive reaction from people win or lose, but taking your example of Pictionary, if someone were playing it with a competitive bent and were in fact actively trying to win and felt disappointed if they lost, they wouldn't be "missing out on a better experience" by not just "letting go and having a good time". They'd be completely in their rights to feel disappointed. I think Crackbone might be more on track by saying that people often interchange "playing to win" with "being a competitive douchebag", where which there is definitely a difference.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 01:27
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:So the housing shortage Monopoly strategy... is that winning by being an insufferable twat? What makes that a valid or not valid strategy? Same question for other games, where a winning strategy can also ruin the game for others or devolve into a slog. In general: A) A strategy that prevents other players from participating in a game makes you a twat. There's no bright line on this, but land destruction in MtG is a classic example. However: B) Game with "total player shutdown" strategies are bad games, because that means they didn't make a good set of rules. So don't play them. C) If A) and B) don't apply, then go hog wild. If the players complain, they're stupid doo-doo heads who need to get gud or stop being so thin skinned about losing. Merauder posted:I think Crackbone might be more on track by saying that people often interchange "playing to win" with "being a competitive douchebag", where which there is definitely a difference.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 01:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 19:19 |
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:So the housing shortage Monopoly strategy... is that winning by being an insufferable twat? What makes that a valid or not valid strategy? Same question for other games, where a winning strategy can also ruin the game for others or devolve into a slog. IMO if winning the game by any means makes the game unfun for the other people playing, it's a symptom of Bad Game. Although to an extent any zero-sum game with player interaction involves one person winning via another's losing, you should be able to enjoy yourself even while losing. A lot of times this takes the form of catchup mechanisms or obfuscating the scoring of the game so that it's less certain who the winner is until the game is over. Basically as long as the losing player thinks that they still have a chance, even just a small chance or even just the chance to not come in last, it can remain fun.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 01:30
|
|
