|
I love getting wrecked at games, I always congratulate my opponent when they make a really cool play that absolutely destroys me. I really struggle to sympathize with people who are sore losers because it just makes it no fun to be on either side of the engagement then. I have an online buddy who absolutely rages when things don't go his way (I'm talking like, he grabs a leather in Jaipur and the next card to come up is a diamond which I can grab, he instantly just flies into a rage about how it's bullshit, even if a similar thing happened to me a turn ago) and it's just miserable to win against him. The only time I ever have fun against him is if he's dominating the game, because I like playing even when I lose, and I like seeing him happy because he's winning, and that's the only circumstance under which both of us have fun. I've had a talk with him about his behavior and he's pretty much on a 3 strikes system before I never play online with him again. Have fun losing, folks.
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 21:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 16:31 |
|
|
It's a whole lot easier to not get mad at games once you realize you are bad at them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 22:02
|
|
|
FulsomFrank posted:Maybe there needs to be more liquor involved in these gatherings. Maybe, but I find the opposite is the case for my group at least. The drunker people get the more likely they are to text boy/girlfriends and disengage. Not to say board games and booze don't mix, but I'm getting really close to implementing a no-drink policy for my group unless we're playing something like Resistance because people start to check out or forget rules. The worst is when you wanted to teach a new game and by the time everyone has shown up two people are already on their second or third drink and you know it's futile. This is even worse with my current group who are still very much in their board game/RPG infancy and regularly forget rules sober.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 22:03
|
|
|
Magnetic North posted:It's a whole lot easier to not get mad at games once you realize you are bad at them. Unironically This. All my friends growing up beat my rear end at everything - video games, academics, card games, sports, drawing, pretty much everything other than performance (music, stand-up), and certainly the stuff I cared most about. This was incredibly beneficial to me though because it meant I was always playing against people better than me and thus improving at a solid tick, and also I learned real fast how to lose gracefully and respect someone who, like dropkickpikachu said, showed you some sick tech.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 22:06
|
|
|
So far the winners of the last few Keyflower games I've been in have won by determining their stratergy in turns 1-2, then going all in to drive it home for the rest of the game. That time one player managed to hog all the transport tiles, got the 2x transport summer tile, then got the boat at the end that scored for transport capability... it was a massacre 
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 22:09
|
|
|
My GF and I tend to go at each other with such fervor in games that someone else usually ends up winning because we were too focused on destroying one another. I honestly can't think of the last time we formed any sort of alliance in game.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 22:14
|
|
|
Magnetic North posted:It's a whole lot easier to not get mad at games once you realize you are bad at them. Yes, basically you just have to know that you're bad and have fun being bad and getting a little better every time.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 22:24
|
|
|
I don't mind losing almost ever, but I do become kind of an rear end in a top hat if people aren't paying attention to the game. That's one of the reasons I'm done trying to do any serious drinking during games.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 22:45
|
|
|
Somberbrero posted:I don't mind losing almost ever, but I do become kind of an rear end in a top hat if people aren't paying attention to the game. That's one of the reasons I'm done trying to do any serious drinking during games. The only times I've gotten mad at board games were the oblivious dude who literally could not grasp how Risk: Legacy combat worked from one round to the next and the guy who metaphorically flipped the table in Spyfall because he was the spy but couldn't stop making obvious tells about it and got called on it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 22:55
|
|
|
I'm not a sore loser, really. I don't think I won many matches of MTG the first year I played, and I just kept coming back for more. It's just that some of my friends could take a lesson in being gracious winners instead of smug bastards. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 22:58
|
|
|
Rutibex posted:This has turned on a friend of mine and his wife. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 23:08
|
|
|
SynthOrange posted:So far the winners of the last few Keyflower games I've been in have won by determining their stratergy in turns 1-2, then going all in to drive it home for the rest of the game.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 23:21
|
|
|
I'm not a fan of how wide the idea of not looking at your hand in Coup or Skull or Cash 'n Guns or pretty much any game about bluffing seems to have spread. It's like saying 'I don't want to participate in this game, but I'm still going to have the worst possible hand in its outcome.'
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 23:56
|
|
|
What, never? In Coup that'd change the chance of successfully challenging from what/who knows to uh, 22/25.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 00:15
|
|
|
Mr. Squishy posted:What, never? In Coup that'd change the chance of successfully challenging from what/who knows to uh, 22/25.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 00:17
|
|
|
Some people pride themselves on being able to bluff so well that it doesn't matter what their cards are. Those people don't sound fun to play Coup with, but whatever.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 00:19
|
|
|
They got the idea from poker, presumably, where it's not uncommon. You need to do your best to make sure that your opponents don't know you've not looked at the cards, mind, which it doesn't sound like these people have really mastered.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 00:39
|
|
|
*wears hoodie, baseball cap, and dark sunglasses when playing Coup*
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 00:43
|
|
|
Sometimes you do want people to know you haven't looked, or at least you're indifferent towards it. In the rare cases where I act without looking in poker, it usually means I would do the same thing with any card and I don't want my opponent to have any chance at free information until knowing my hand does something for me, too. Comes up more in draw or stud games than hold'em - hold'em's equivalent is to act "in the dark", publicly acting on the next cards before those are revealed to the players. Or straddling (blind raise at the start), which is again public and has mechanical difference to just raising without looking. In Netrunner I might install/advance an agenda or trap without looking to see which one it is, or run a random remote, etc. In those cases I don't always strictly want the opponent to know, but nothing's at stake and it's easier to do it publicly.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 00:48
|
|
|
Countblanc posted:Maybe, but I find the opposite is the case for my group at least. The drunker people get the more likely they are to text boy/girlfriends and disengage. Not to say board games and booze don't mix, but I'm getting really close to implementing a no-drink policy for my group unless we're playing something like Resistance because people start to check out or forget rules. The worst is when you wanted to teach a new game and by the time everyone has shown up two people are already on their second or third drink and you know it's futile. This is even worse with my current group who are still very much in their board game/RPG infancy and regularly forget rules sober. Personally, I'm just salty about people spilling drinks on my god damned $50 board games. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 01:30
|
|
|
Get your mind out of the gutter.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 01:32
|
|
|
dropkickpikachu posted:*wears hoodie, baseball cap, and dark sunglasses when playing Coup* I genuinely find it astonishing that the professional poker circuit allows this. It's fundamentally a bluffing game. Players should be forced to play with their faces and hands visible to each other at all times.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 01:33
|
|
|
Somberbrero posted:I don't mind losing almost ever, but I do become kind of an rear end in a top hat if people aren't paying attention to the game. That's one of the reasons I'm done trying to do any serious drinking during games. the other reason is it is hard to help your cylon teammate win the game when you're vomiting in the bathroom 
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 01:36
|
|
|
Vivian Darkbloom posted:Personally, I'm just salty about people spilling drinks on my god damned $50 board games. I haven't had that happen yet, though there's been a few scares. Someone did step on my Keyflower box a while back - Fortunately it was empty at the time so there weren't any ruined components, but the box itself has certainly seen better days.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 01:40
|
|
|
Clockwork Gadget posted:the other reason is it is hard to help your cylon teammate win the game when you're vomiting in the bathroom To be fair, even drunk I didn't make a decision worse than picking a three distance destination.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 01:41
|
|
|
foxxtrot posted:I genuinely find it astonishing that the professional poker circuit allows this. It's fundamentally a bluffing game. Players should be forced to play with their faces and hands visible to each other at all times. Eh, I would think of poker more as an odds/auction kind of game with elements of bluffing when it comes to it. You can calculate your equity without having to see someone's eyes, and a lot of the bluffing/thinking can just be done from player actions of calling, raising or folding.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 01:42
|
|
|
foxxtrot posted:I genuinely find it astonishing that the professional poker circuit allows this. It's fundamentally a bluffing game. Players should be forced to play with their faces and hands visible to each other at all times. do they allow people to just straight up wear masks
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 01:53
|
|
|
dropkickpikachu posted:do they allow people to just straight up wear masks World Furries of Poker Probably more entertaining than real poker tournaments, watching them struggle to manage a hand of cards in a fursuit
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 01:58
|
|
|
Personally, I play Poker wearing a Vader helmet.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 02:00
|
|
|
dropkickpikachu posted:do they allow people to just straight up wear masks Well online poker used to be a thing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 02:02
|
|
|
Kai Tave posted:Well online poker used to be a thing. Still is, even in the US though not much.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 02:05
|
|
|
dropkickpikachu posted:*wears hoodie, baseball cap, and dark sunglasses when playing Coup* The unabomber manifesto
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 02:06
|
|
|
AMooseDoesStuff posted:I'm not a fan of how wide the idea of not looking at your hand in Coup or Skull or Cash 'n Guns or pretty much any game about bluffing seems to have spread. Speaking of Cash and Guns, I keep hearing about how the older version is better than the current one. Any reasons why?
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 02:37
|
|
|
Xelkelvos posted:Speaking of Cash and Guns, I keep hearing about how the older version is better than the current one. Any reasons why? Biggest thing I can say is there were slight changes to the mechanics for 2nd edition made it more streamlined for the intent of hitting the audience they originally wanted (casual beer & pretzels type game), at the cost of some actual strategic decision making; namely the change in how money is distributed at the end of each round. In the original, if money couldn't be divided evenly among all the players who remained standing, then no one got anything and the money carried over to the next round creating a growing pot. This required a little bit of math, and as simple as it may seem, was probably enough to be considered "too much" for the aforementioned goal for the game and their audience. Who you choose to point your gun at or shoot becomes more important because you're trying to keep the right amount of people in for the pot so you'll actually get something, but not so many people that it gets divided up too much. I also seem to recall the original not having asymmetrical player powers which a lot of people thought were garbage in 2nd Ed. There's probably a few other small things as well, but it's been a long time since I've looked at either.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 02:45
|
|
|
Xelkelvos posted:Speaking of Cash and Guns, I keep hearing about how the older version is better than the current one. Any reasons why? IIRC because 2nd ed. added a "boss" role that can point a gun away from them and gets first pick of the loot, loot value was tweaked for the worse, as well as (subjectively) worse art. Edit: beaten with better points
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 02:46
|
|
|
The Narrator posted:IIRC because 2nd ed. added a "boss" role that can point a gun away from them and gets first pick of the loot, loot value was tweaked for the worse, as well as (subjectively) worse art. John Kovalic's art is pretty much the definition of "objectively worse" regardless of circumstance or context.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 02:51
|
|
|
Kai Tave posted:John Kovalic's art is pretty much the definition of "objectively worse" regardless of circumstance or context. I feel the same way, just didn't want to step on the shoes of any Kovalic fiends in case. Also that worse art is (to me anyway) less painful than worse mechanics.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 03:00
|
|
|
Warhammer Quest: ACG is really fun. Really, really fun. After I worked out a lot of the kinks (the rulebook is pretty bad), I got into a flow and was having a good time. I played the first campaign quest with the Ironbreaker and the Bright Mage, and juuuust about died. There's enough going on to keep me engaged, though it often felt like a stripped down version of LOTR:TCG. One would think that only have 4 possible actions per turn would make it feel samey, but it really didn't. The dice actually add to the gameplay instead of making it feel random. Overall, a good fun time.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 03:54
|
|
|
Quick Tokaido question: I've been eyeing it at a FLGS, and want to know what I need to buy to have "everything". If I'm reading it right, I just need the Tokaido Deluxe box and the Matsuri expansion...correct? Deluxe includes Crossroads and the Collector's Accessories?
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 05:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 16:31 |
|
|
Merauder posted:namely the change in how money is distributed at the end of each round. In the original, if money couldn't be divided evenly among all the players who remained standing, then no one got anything and the money carried over to the next round creating a growing pot. This isn't entirely accurate. If you can't divide the money evenly, you distribute as much as is possible to distribute evenly and without making change. If possible, larger bills are handed out first. Then, leave the rest in the center for the next round. For instance, suppose there is one 20k, one 10k and three 5ks. With two people standing, each gets 20k and 5k is left behind. With three players standing, each gets 5k, and the remaining 35k stay in. With four players standing, it can't be divided evenly, so no one gets anything and it all stays in the center. Another example: three 10ks and 2 5ks. With two players standing, each gets 20k, and there is no remainder. With three players standing, each gets a 10k bill, and 10k is left behind, specifically the two 5k bills. With four players standing, each gets 10k with no remainder. Suppose we had two 5K bill left over, and when we pulled five new ones, our total was now two 20ks, two 10ks and three 5ks. With two players standing, each gets 35k with 5k left over. With three players standing, each gets a 25k with no remainder. With four players standing, even with all those bills, it can't be divided evenly so no one gets anything and it all stays in the center. I haven't played the new version yet, and I wonder if the new loot system would be an improvement or not.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 05:46
|
|