|
Has anyone played The Great Zimbabwe yet? What's it like to actually play, on-hand view from the table-wise? I'd love to hear some first-hand impressions 
|
#
?
May 7, 2016 01:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 08:24 |
|
|
Jedit posted:*blink* You're being sarcastic right?  I thought everyone knew that I was on the design team for Adv Civ.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2016 02:24
|
|
|
Lorini posted:You're being sarcastic right? News to me! 
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2016 02:29
|
|
|
Goons dont do stuff! We just sit around and complain about stuff!
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2016 02:30
|
|
|
Mister Sinewave posted:Has anyone played The Great Zimbabwe yet? What's it like to actually play, on-hand view from the table-wise? I'd love to hear some first-hand impressions TGZ is a great first Splotter game if you've never played any of their stuff before, since it distills a lot of what's fun about their games into a 30 minute/player package. The aim of the game is to build craftsmen that will make ritual goods using resources on the map that you then need to transport to your towers to raise them up, earning you points, with the game ending when someone hits 20 points. The higher the tower, the more points its worth, but the more different types of goods you need to level it up again. The twist is that almost anything you do to improve your efficiency increases the number of points you need to win. Taking special powers, researching the technology that lets you build specific craftsmen, etc, so that 20 quickly turns into 25, or 30, or more. There's also a lot of ways to mess with other players, because the resources on the board that become goods can only be used once a round, so competition for turn order gets pretty fierce when you get near the end of the game. Endings tend to be explosive as well, somewhat like Food Chain Magnate, where everyone will be building up for a while, then you hit an inflection point somewhere and the game ends like 3 turns later.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2016 02:32
|
|
|
Lorini posted:You're being sarcastic right? I mean I only know because you talked about it when I mentioned it was my favorite game evar and I was basically "holy gently caress" too.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2016 02:32
|
|
|
taser rates posted:TGZ is a great first Splotter game if you've never played any of their stuff before, since it distills a lot of what's fun about their games into a 30 minute/player package That's exactly the kind of summary I wanted to hear, thanks!
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2016 02:55
|
|
|
SynthOrange posted:Goons dont do stuff! We just sit around and complain about stuff! i helped design a successful ttrpg!! gently caress you!!
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2016 03:04
|
|
|
Countblanc posted:i helped design a successful ttrpg!! gently caress you!! Define successful. But no, that's pretty cool.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2016 05:13
|
|
|
foxxtrot posted:Define successful. Strike! is really, really good and one of very few games to take inspiration from D&D 4e successfully.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2016 06:02
|
|
|
Morpheus posted:Betrayal is one of the few games that, when brought up, makes me roll my eyes. I can't believe people still enjoy it despite the situation that JohnnySavs described consistently coming up. I've never seen a fulfilling finale, it's always a stomp in one direction or another. The only reason I play it these days is when I've got a bunch of friends who're playing it - I just use it as a vehicle for conversation, putting about as much thought into it as I would sipping a beer in a bar. Congratulations, you've discovered how most "normal" people play board games and why they tolerate crap. It's just something to do that occupies hands and provides a topic of conversation. That said, Tales of Arabian Nights is an example of how you can have a random-nonsense story generator game that isn't also a crappy boring experience 70% of the time.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2016 06:08
|
|
|
I forgot why I hated Betrayal so I gave it a go a few weeks ago. The defining moment of it for me was trying to track the invisible traitor's movement using the enemy space occupancy rules. We had him narrowed down to one space and ran over to punch him. "I'm not there" "What? You have to be. The rules state that it costs an additional movement for each enemy in the room." "The traitor book says it doesn't apply." That's when I admittedly started getting kind of grumbly and unpleasant about how lovely it is to have rules that only one person knows about. That's some straight up Calvinball poo poo.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2016 06:58
|
|
|
Played 5 player galaxy trucker using only the base set with three new players, it was great! I dropped out round 3 pre-building so everyone would get enough pieces. I think 40 total pieces were lost that round, everyone took big hits. It was beautiful and we all had a good laugh
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2016 08:02
|
|
|
SynthOrange posted:Goons dont do stuff! We just sit around and complain about stuff! That should be an essential part of any design team though.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2016 08:50
|
|
|
Mega64 posted:
Holy poo poo, I'm doing this on my next game night
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2016 10:00
|
|
|
Dr Tran posted:Holy poo poo, I'm doing this on my next game night Miscarriage, 7.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2016 14:04
|
|
|
Mr. Squishy posted:Miscarriage, 7. That applies to all 25 cards, though.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2016 14:49
|
|
|
"Edgy", 25
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2016 15:48
|
|
|
Tasteful, zero.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2016 15:49
|
|
|
They are very wordy cards so it might be difficult to think of a clue that does not show up on one of them
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2016 16:29
|
|
|
Machai posted:They are very wordy cards so it might be difficult to think of a clue that does not show up on one of them Sure, if you have the vocabulary of a thirteen-year-old.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2016 16:33
|
|
|
I am the spy with the codename "a burning pile of dead babies"
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2016 16:50
|
|
|
Jedit posted:That applies to all 25 cards, though. It actually applies to CaH itself
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2016 17:08
|
|
|
Is there a name in gaming theory for a move that helps you a little bit, but the main motivation is that it screws over someone else a lot?
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2016 17:13
|
|
|
Machai posted:I am the spy with the codename "a burning pile of dead babies" Where they dead before or after the piling and burning? This is very important in determining the level of edginess in play here.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2016 17:14
|
|
|
House Louse posted:Is there a name in gaming theory for a move that helps you a little bit, but the main motivation is that it screws over someone else a lot? A dick move?
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2016 17:18
|
|
|
House Louse posted:Is there a name in gaming theory for a move that helps you a little bit, but the main motivation is that it screws over someone else a lot? Depends on the context. If you're talking about a 2 player game, it's a good move. If a 3+ player game, it really depends on the situation, sometimes it might be a good move. Frequently though it is indeed just being a jerk.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2016 17:42
|
|
|
I played a learning game of Millennium Blades with my wife, and it was really fun, though she wasn't big into learning how to make a good deck. I think that next time we play, especially having more people, she'll probably focus more on the collection aspect. In any case the timed segments are super fun!
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2016 17:44
|
|
|
House Louse posted:Is there a name in gaming theory for a move that helps you a little bit, but the main motivation is that it screws over someone else a lot? "Take that" seems to be the most general term. If player A is in an unwinnable state, but makes those moves against player B to cause player C to win, it's "kingmaking". These terms only really apply in games with at least three different sides. "gently caress the leader" is another common term. These are all generally frowned upon in terms of game design. If the move specifically takes the form of scooping up resources you don't really need just so nobody else can have them (e.g. putting a worker on a space so nobody else can put a worker there this round), it's "denial". If the move even more specifically takes the form of drafting items you don't want or can't use just so nobody else can draft them, it's "hatedrafting". Lottery of Babylon fucked around with this message at 17:58 on May 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 7, 2016 17:54
|
|
|
In worker placement, the term would be "blocking."
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2016 18:00
|
|
|
Some Numbers posted:In worker placement, the term would be "blocking." What about "hateblocking"?
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2016 18:10
|
|
|
House Louse posted:Is there a name in gaming theory for a move that helps you a little bit, but the main motivation is that it screws over someone else a lot? This is basically just Kingmaking. It is a good strategy for the meta-game.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2016 18:38
|
|
|
I generally call that 'spite' as a catchall term. I don't think spite plays are inherently good or bad, it all depends on if you're still trying to play the game to the best of your ability.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2016 19:29
|
|
|
I think spite plays are bad but i'm the guy in my group of friends who obsesses about games and spoils the meta by reading strategy. I wouldn't do it if my job didn't involve sitting around on the internet for hours!
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2016 19:32
|
|
|
Impermanent posted:I think spite plays are bad but i'm the guy in my group of friends who obsesses about games and spoils the meta by reading strategy. I wouldn't do it if my job didn't involve sitting around on the internet for hours! It depends on intent. Spite is probably a bad term because it implies you're doing it to the detriment of yourself. If your goal is to win or place as high as possible (i.e. you value coming in 2nd more than 3rd), a move that fucks over a competitor can absolutely be the optimal move in which case it's not really "spite". It's just playing towards your goal. Essentially: thespaceinvader posted:Depends on the context. If you're talking about a 2 player game, it's a good move. If a 3+ player game, it really depends on the situation, sometimes it might be a good move.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2016 19:57
|
|
|
Rutibex posted:This is basically just Kingmaking. It is a good strategy for the meta-game. King making is the opposite. It's when you act to let another player win usually because you've no shot at winning yourself any more
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2016 20:03
|
|
|
Plays that hurt other people and help yourself are called good.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2016 20:05
|
|
|
Mojo Jojo posted:King making is the opposite. It's when you act to let another player win usually because you've no shot at winning yourself any more It has the exact same effect, harming one player benefits another (assuming a game with 3 or more players). You are either king making the lead player, or the second place player (if you target the lead player).
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2016 20:10
|
|
|
Rutibex posted:It has the exact same effect, harming one player benefits another (assuming a game with 3 or more players). You are either king making the lead player, or the second place player (assuming you target the lead player). King making usually implies the move does little to no good to the person making it, the question is about a move that helps you a little but hurts another player a lot. Presumably it's the best move available.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2016 20:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 08:24 |
|
|
Impermanent posted:I think spite plays are bad but i'm the guy in my group of friends who obsesses about games and spoils the meta by reading strategy. I wouldn't do it if my job didn't involve sitting around on the internet for hours! Honestly thats what makes games fun is different personalities playing. I'm the type of player that doesn't mind losing if I can screw over someone who screwed me over.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2016 20:25
|
|
