|
So I've had a disagreement with my partner (who I play loads of games with) about how I/we play games together with other people. I view games as political in nature, while he sees them more as pure intellectual challenges against other people, individually. Where this comes into conflict is when I offer suggestions to other players, or call out his strategy to other players when I see it before it's complete. With players new to a game (under 2 games of Inis for example) I always tell them the absolute best option they could do that I can see, and the reasoning behind it. For example if another player is looking to expand into one or more adjacent territories in Inis, I'll helpfully point out the pro's to the one that is in my interest for them to go into. When doing so, my advice is never untrue, but it may not be the best option they could have taken merely a good option. I tell this to people up front, and expect them to evaluate what I say with that in mind. I play exclusively with adults, and expect them to play to their own best interests and take or reject advice in kind. Or if I notice my partner needs x from y territory in Inis I'll point this out to someone who could do something about it. He feels that if that person didn't notice it, I shouldn't interfere because then it's multiple people playing to make him lose banding together. He also feels that since I'm often more familiar with games than other people we play with, the suggestions I make have unfair weight due to my experience with the game. Outside of games with explicit political mechanisms (TI4, Chicago express) he thinks games shouldn't be political. He doesn't think Inis is a political game, except during clashes. I think games can be designed in order to implicitly create political gameplay, while he thinks only explicit game mechanics should be doing this. He thinks I shouldn't alert other players to his strategy when I notice it, and that if they don't notice it then that's their fault. Even if I don't have a way to stymie his plans, but other people do. At the end of the day I'm going to tone down the politics and 'whispering in other peoples ears like vaerys' because that makes games unfun for him, but I'm really curious what some other perspectives are on this because it feels like a somewhat radical request. Especially the idea that games must have an explicit political mechanism to be political.
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2020 22:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 04:36 |
|
|
I read through all of Oath's 11 designer diaries and watched Cole's 25 minute video on the Kickstarter. Part of me really wants to get it because it's a cool idea, but I see elements of Root I truly disliked in the design and that makes me hesitate. The designer diaries go a long way to show how much thought & effort Cole puts into game design. In an industry where people make designs and paste themes on top, Cole definitely does the opposite. It sounds like he read a minimum of 10 books to come up with just the narrative ideas for this game. My hesitation is that the legacy mechanic seems such a core feature from the beginning of the design process, that the gameplay & interface was shaped around making it possible, and I'm just not sure that gameplay actually looks any fun. The meat of the game seems to be about mustering troops and engaging in a relatively simply dice rolling combat system to fight for either territory or one of two special powers depending on what the rotating victory condition is. In either case you either end up attacking people's land or attack the special powers to lower their cost & allow you to buy them. The dice rolls seem incredibly important to the point that in the small 25 minute video two entire campaigns were forfeit off the dice rolls and the players had to use another action to simply roll again and hope for a better roll. I dislike this level of randomness in any game mechanic, especially combat. The fourth victory condition does seem different and revolves around cards you have in your face up hand/cohort. The other main thing you can do in the game seems to be draw cards from a facedown deck and then choose to play one either to your cohort or the board. None of it looked terribly engaging on a mechanical level. It seems like the type of game where your experience is generated through your interaction and negotiation with other players. With that said my other worry is there definitely seems to be a set up for end game to become a round robin bash-the-leader & losing player brinkmanship plays that made me hate Root. It seems rather obvious when someone is about to fulfill their victory condition (through oath or vision card) and it's going to then be about to everyone to push them down. I think Pax Pamir has less of an issue with this than Root, and there are some of the alliance mechanics from that game present in Oath, so maybe it will all work out. Anyone else watch the video and have thoughts?
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2020 22:18
|
|
|
Spikes32 posted:So I've had a disagreement with my partner (who I play loads of games with) about how I/we play games together with other people. I view games as political in nature, while he sees them more as pure intellectual challenges against other people, individually. Where this comes into conflict is when I offer suggestions to other players, or call out his strategy to other players when I see it before it's complete. With players new to a game (under 2 games of Inis for example) I always tell them the absolute best option they could do that I can see, and the reasoning behind it. I agree with your partner on only negotiating in ways that are explicitly allowed in the rules. I find games a lot more interesting when people are navigating around each other in the dark and implicitly making/declining offers via manipulating the game state, which is why I wouldn't consider Chicago Express a political game in the sense that you do. Though I'm also happy to negotiate in games that do allow it in the rules, since those games tend to have a far more interesting dimension to the negotiation, eg Greed Inc, Rolling Stock.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2020 22:25
|
|
|
Spikes32 posted:Outside of games with explicit political mechanisms (TI4, Chicago express) he thinks games shouldn't be political. He doesn't think Inis is a political game, except during clashes. I think games can be designed in order to implicitly create political gameplay, while he thinks only explicit game mechanics should be doing this. He thinks I shouldn't alert other players to his strategy when I notice it, and that if they don't notice it then that's their fault. Even if I don't have a way to stymie his plans, but other people do. Politics is human interaction over resources (either real or metaphysical), all games have human interaction, the accomplishment of winning is a metaphysical resource, ergo all games are political. Beep boop boop ad hominem post ergo hoc. But seriously what you're actually doing is not "politicking", it is a strategy. The strategy is you advise them on a good move, but not necessarily the best move, while you make all the best moves, therefore you have an advantage and win. Or you point out your opponent's strategy and how to counter it while not revealing your own; this informational asymmetry makes it more likely that other players will kneecap your opponent and not you. This is a game-independent strategy and it can work as long as you are more skilled than your opponents. I find the idea that you're not allowed to talk about the game that's unfolding abhorrent. Your partner should simply point out that you are trying to win as well and you are attempting to manipulate others through "advice".
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2020 22:27
|
|
|
If it's with new people, tell them the best possible moves because it helps them build heuristics and become a better opponent faster. Telling them to do dumb things might mean you're the winner, but it's a hollow victory against new people anyway and it sucks. Personally, I like pointing out all strategies when it seems like opponents aren't seeing it, mine or others, because I'd like to play as if everyone is playing their best. Of course this gets into the grey area of me not realizing it and therefore masking my own strategy, but I'd happily talk through each of my turns and thought process to get opponents up to speed faster so we can have a Good Game instead of Learning Game. Every game with interaction can have metagame politics. I don't find them interesting because you can reduce any game down to a popularity poll if you felt like it. Chill la Chill fucked around with this message at 22:35 on Jan 20, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2020 22:31
|
|
|
Yeah, it's good to point out pitfalls in a strategic move to a new player (like pointing out a potential checkmate while teaching chess) but a lot of people don't like being told how to play/what to do in a strategic game and if you're only doing it in a way that helps you that's too far and adds a lot of social pressure or tension to strategic decisions. Of course various levels of these will happen in any group and it's up to the players to all decide what's fair and not.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2020 22:37
|
|
|
The fact that this dude specifically referenced Game of Thrones makes me think that this is probably on the negative side of the strategy, rather than the positive.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2020 22:38
|
|
|
I think you are conflating two seperate topics A) advice for new players B) politicing at the table. Advice for new players is relatively straightforward. At the start of the game I ask them if they want advice, advice only when they ask or no advice. Any advice given is 100% honest. I don't think anything else is really appropriate. Politick at the table is more interesting. I think it depends on the game: if we are playing AFFO I won't do it. Any game with conflict or shared incentives I will do it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2020 22:41
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:The fact that this dude specifically referenced Game of Thrones makes me think that this is probably on the negative side of the strategy, rather than the positive. This is a fair question, but I don't believe I do this. I'm not a huge talker in games most of the time, usually it's friendly unrelated chit chat. I restrain it to variations of 'you could go there instead to get this this and this' or 'x is going to win if we let him get this or keep doing this'. With new players (less than two prior plays of the game being played) I give the best possible option with reasoning laid out.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2020 22:43
|
|
|
I'd say it's pretty simple: There are a lot of things you can do outside of a game's rules to increase your chances of winning, whether that's selfishly motivated advice, out of game bribery or threats, or strategic poisoning. They are okay only if everyone in your group agrees they are okay; if anyone doesn't think they're okay or finds the experience less fun because of them then you shouldn't do them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2020 22:45
|
|
|
Chill la Chill posted:If it's with new people, tell them the best possible moves because it helps them build heuristics and become a better opponent faster. Telling them to do dumb things might mean you're the winner, but it's a hollow victory against new people anyway and it sucks. Personally, I like pointing out all strategies when it seems like opponents aren't seeing it, mine or others, because I'd like to play as if everyone is playing their best. Of course this gets into the grey area of me not realizing it and therefore masking my own strategy, but I'd happily talk through each of my turns and thought process to get opponents up to speed faster so we can have a Good Game instead of Learning Game. This is how I like to play it myself. I also find that the more information a person has the more they feel in control and actually like they're having fun playing the game. If someone is learning or unsure how the game works I am more than happy to spill the beans on my own plans and what I would do in their shoes, doing my best to be as objective as possible. Hopefully they enjoy themselves and want to play again and you can start taking the training wheels off and move into the much desired Good Game territory that Chill is mentioning. I've seen it happen too many times where someone who knows a game too much just tries to use the learning game as a punching bag and ruins it forever afterwards.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2020 22:47
|
|
|
I like to label games that someone is new to as learning games and make pointing out things for them part of the experience. Everyone is usually OK with that, and I tend to only speak up anyway when they are about to make a very bad move for themselves or may have missed something important because they haven't internalized the mechanics yet. As much as I'm over Terraforming Mars, I do like that it has a mechanic for new players that mixes with experienced players at the beginning. I sort of wish more games would include that in their design.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2020 22:59
|
|
|
I hate giving new players advice because it's usually terrible. Like, I suggest they do a thing, and then realize they just moved into my firing range or whatever. Or another player's, if I'm spectating. Basically I'm a terrible teacher.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2020 23:13
|
|
|
The amount of strategic talking/politicking allowed in a game is a very interesting topic. Me and a good friend had a pretty heated argument over Balderdash recently. When the different explanations are read aloud, I find it fun and interesting when players actively comment on them. Someone might say "That sounds like something John would write", or "that one sounds to science-y". I often mock my own suggestions in an attempt to get more votes. I love this kind of social interaction in games. Riffing on each others personalities in an attempt to get ahead. But my friend fount it very frustrating, this manipulation as he called it. And thought that the explanations should be judged by themselves, essentially ruling that we be quiet as they're read aloud. We ended up not playing the game much longer. My thoughts are that people should be allowed to speak, and if some players don't care for that aspect, than they should simply ignore what's being said. But I wonder what people in here think of the issue.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2020 23:18
|
|
|
sorry your partner is clearclaw, spikes32
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2020 23:28
|
|
|
For me polticking, or gamesmanship is fine in a game. But I think it depends very much on your group. In my group we've all known each other for decades, we know the advice is not altruistic. If we were playing with strangers I would be a lot more hesitant. We go by the Air Bud system, rules don't say we can't give terrible self serving advice.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2020 23:32
|
|
|
PlaneGuy posted:sorry your partner is clearclaw, spikes32 You're only half wrong. He hates auction based games because people don't bid as he expects 
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2020 23:35
|
|
|
PlaneGuy posted:sorry your partner is clearclaw, spikes32 He's right
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2020 23:35
|
|
|
If your politicking is consistently done by pointing out your partner's intentions and not any and all players intentions, then I could see them being annoyed by it. Basically if one person in a group winds up consistently being ganged up on, then they will rightly not want to play in that group.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2020 23:46
|
|
|
Some of the most fun I've ever had playing Puerto Rico was when my friend was doing exactly what you describe - giving "helpful tips" to the new player who was right before her in turn order - and her partner and I called her out on it and kibitzed her for the rest of the game. She tilted so badly that finished in last place and we laughed at her for the rest of the night. Good times.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2020 23:47
|
|
|
Cthulhu Dreams posted:I think you are conflating two seperate topics Quoting this as a jump off, there is definitely some conflation of two separate topics. My personal take is that sometimes you just need to shut the gently caress up and play. I have had some issues with fellow 18xx players recently where we all tend to think out loud and have been implicitly inviting advice or comments from other players. The issue is that we get bogged down in discussions about the play of the game and merits of possible decisions. This is a different issue, but I think the solution is the same: Just STFU. Try playing some games where you limit the table talk and let people make mistakes. In games with new players, try to stick to talking about your own strategies and tactical considerations, but let them play their own turns. You don't have to make this a permanent habit, just try it out and see what it feels like. It's something that my group has tried to push for (we call it the non-discussion pact), in addition to putting a self-timer on during turns to try not to overthink. This is all different for explicit negotiation games however. e: Spikes32 posted:You're only half wrong. He hates auction based games because people don't bid as he expects I mean people are really bad at auction games, especially Modern Art style where the money goes to the auctioneer Fellis fucked around with this message at 23:56 on Jan 20, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2020 23:54
|
|
|
Fellis posted:
I absolutely love watching people slowly realize the way money flows in MA and the dynamics of buying their own painting at a certain cost vs buying from others. Highest price I ever saw for a single painting was $165 to me and the buyer turned pale as soon as she handed me the money and realized she threw the game (she was clearly winning before).
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2020 01:04
|
|
|
Spikes32 posted:You're only half wrong. He hates auction based games because people don't bid as he expects maybe they should give them more bidding advice 
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2020 01:06
|
|
|
It’s weird that I consider my group playing for intellectual challenges but we also discuss strategies openly a lot because we want us all to be playing at the top of our game. I just got mad at another player in 1822 for saying someone should hold to buy the 6 because everyone but him (who were later in turn order) was sitting on 3s. It wrecked me to the tune of $600 in emergency fundraising and it sucks but it’s also a learning experience because I was trying to hold on to my minors.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2020 02:01
|
|
|
CommonShore posted:Some of the most fun I've ever had playing Puerto Rico was when my friend was doing exactly what you describe - giving "helpful tips" to the new player who was right before her in turn order - and her partner and I called her out on it and kibitzed her for the rest of the game. She tilted so badly that finished in last place and we laughed at her for the rest of the night. Good times. Just quoting this to clarify, for new players I will give the best advice I have regardless of how bad it will wreck me. It's only for experienced players I'll point things out less optimaly and more politically. I appreciate all the perspectives everyone has given, I'm glad there are multiple people on both sides of the argument and as I said on my initial post (at the end) I do intent to play less politically going forward because it was important to them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2020 02:29
|
|
|
My gaming buddies and I regularly discuss strategies for everybody during the game, but one of them goes overboard, basically quarterbacking competitive games. He'll point out every move I make that he believes was suboptimal, which makes every one of my victories over him even sweeter. Of course, this is only bearable because we're friends. When a new player joins us, I try to clamp down because giving constant advice can easily spill over into not letting them play for themselves.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2020 02:39
|
|
|
Teaching people games is fine, but quarterbacking sucks. Especially when a player is using it to their advantage over others. There's a guy in our regular group who likes to do this when we break out games that some of our friends aren't familiar with, and he thinks he's being clever in manipulating the newbs into doing what he wants them to. At that point nobody trusts him and will actively screw him over whenever they get the hang of the game and the opportunity arises. I see this as self-regulating behavior, since he presents himself as a primary antagonist when people realize what he's up to, and they tend to see him that way in later games as well.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2020 03:20
|
|
|
All I know is if somebody tells me which moves I should be playing it ceases to become a game of interesting decisions and instead becomes a social obligation.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2020 03:22
|
|
|
I got my copy of On Mars to the table this weekend for the first time. I don't like all these vacuum formed trays, I need to find a better solution. teaching and setup took quite a while ~1.25hr mostly because it was a bgame "party" where there were a bunch of people around and we kept getting interrupted. We played the short version of the game (not the first colonist recommended first game) and it took at least 2.5hr. I would say most of this time was looking up the iconography in the reference book and rules clarifications because I'm a bad teacher. Overall, I enjoyed the game. It feels more direct than Lisboa which I felt was complicated to be complicated. We played with three players. I'm unsure as to why there are even points on the first line of the LSS track. All of the scoring comes at the end of the game which is fine, but I feel like the incidental points you get throughout don't really do or mean much (I ended up losing by 2 points but it had nothing to do with the LSS track points). I like that you can spend more workers to boost actions and then welcome another ship to get more dudes since you'll only get things back depending on which side you travel to. This means you can put guys out on the board on mines and such and still have space in your living quarters when you do go back to orbit. Also, things that let you develop tech for free are incredibly strong. I barely spent any Oxygen/resources on my tree and instead moved my rover around using another player's rover tech snatching up research tiles, and using crystals for the executive action that upgrades tech. My crystal generation was the Systems Engineer and Casino blueprint, so I was rolling in them. I'm not sure how I feel about missions. They feel like something that just happens as you play the game instead of something to actively work towards. Maybe that changes with ones other than what we played and maybe it changes in the long game. I'm looking forward to seeing how this plays at four.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2020 03:28
|
|
|
My experiences with On Mars with four have been terrible. Somehow there's always a player that just doesn't get the game and slows the game down to a crawl. I swear I'll never teach with more than three.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2020 03:52
|
|
|
I just listened to the Game Brain episode where they debated this very topic: the sniveler. Trying to convince someone to do something else because I'm losing, or that person is winning, or whatever. I can't stand it, personally. If someone is trying to get someone else to do something in their own interest, I'll call that out as "let them play their own game", especially if it's a particular person who does it all the time. I'm not at all talking about actual negotiation or multiplayer wargames or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2020 04:15
|
|
|
Megasabin posted:I read through all of Oath's 11 designer diaries and watched Cole's 25 minute video on the Kickstarter. Part of me really wants to get it because it's a cool idea, but I see elements of Root I truly disliked in the design and that makes me hesitate. So I haven’t had a chance to watch any of the videos in full so I don’t think I can make you feel any better. But it does look like Oath is trying to shift the focus away from the game itself and onto the metagame while having just an okay game individually. That sounds neat to me but I can respect if it doesn’t sound right for you.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2020 04:47
|
|
|
Personally I can't stand unsolicited advice, and complainers. Something to do with childhood, probably. I feel like a Sniveler is some kind of perfect storm of no thanks for me.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2020 04:49
|
|
|
We've all been The Sniveler.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2020 05:06
|
|
|
pakman posted:We've all been The Sniveler. I don't even disagree with this. I still strongly dislike it, and find it makes games less fun.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2020 05:11
|
|
|
Is the sniveler the person who begs other players not to gently caress them over?
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2020 05:17
|
|
|
CommonShore posted:Is the sniveler the person who begs other players not to gently caress them over? Mostly yeah. Usually in the form "I'm not a threat and that'll tank my game why wouldn't you do this other thing it might even be better for you".
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2020 05:19
|
|
|
Frankly I don't see the point of painting a giant target on your back by making obvious overtures to inexperienced players to make plays that benefit you. Inexperienced players are already playing at a disadvantage, there's no downside to just letting them hang themselves. As I think I said earlier in this thread, in most games it's very easy to adjust your playstyle to take full advantage of suboptimal play by your opponents. Yeah, sometimes this might mean they play directly into someone else's hands instead of your own, but at least you aren't making yourself an easy antagonist in the process.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2020 05:25
|
|
|
silvergoose posted:Mostly yeah. Usually in the form "I'm not a threat and that'll tank my game why wouldn't you do this other thing it might even be better for you". I prefer “diplomatic whining” and it’s totally a valid strategy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2020 05:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 04:36 |
|
|
Looks like the CMon time capsule kickstarter thingy turned out to be a poo poo show. From what I've gathered, alot of people were locked out but a minority were able to get in and make purchases. An update said any transactions made were going to go through and will try later to allow access again. Many of the desired items were also sold out quickly it seems.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2020 05:44
|
|
