|
mellifluous posted:So, any recommendations for a moderately complex low-interaction game that can be played in about 2 hours or less (including the teach) with 4 players, one of whom has pretty bad AP? Buy your brother a chess clock, he gets 30 min and all the other players combined get an hour. E: Not entirely joking, but if he doesn’t think his AP is a problem, you should probably talk to him and see if he’d be interested. I get too AP sometimes and I always feel bad about it even though I’m not the worst in my regular group by far. I bought a timer awhile back but I haven’t pulled it out yet. Fellis fucked around with this message at 18:14 on Feb 4, 2022 |
#
?
Feb 4, 2022 18:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 00:12 |
|
|
Arzaac posted:I'm sure this game is good but the art is extremely uncanny valley to me 
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2022 18:24
|
|
|
hideous!
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2022 18:27
|
|
|
When I take a longer turn it's usually me coming to terms with the fact that I don't have a path to victory anymore. That should happen at most once per game.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2022 19:27
|
|
|
I'm glad Lisa Frank was able to break into the board game industry.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2022 20:30
|
|
|
Games have a tempo. For example an 1822 turn will in general take longer for a player than an Everdell turn. That's fine. It's when you are taking turns every turn that's out of sync with the rest of the players, then your turn length is becoming an issue. And in my opinion trying to end a game because you are losing is selfish. Let people play the game out and be a kind person 
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2022 20:37
|
|
|
Heh, I learned from AITA that there is a very dedicated circle of Settlers of Catan players who get absolutely livid at the idea of a weaker player playing to bring down a stronger player or otherwise playing kingmaker, even when that stronger player has them locked down in some way. It was pretty wild! EDIT: Here's a copy of the post. Despite the title, she wasn't cheating and was playing by the rules. https://www.rareddit.com/r/AmItheAsshole/comments/pkef8a/aita_for_cheating_and_making_sure_my_bf_lost_in/ Solkanar512 fucked around with this message at 21:04 on Feb 4, 2022 |
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2022 21:01
|
|
|
With one exception, all of the really good players I know are fast, fast, fast. The one exception I know is an outlier of a player who consistently takes a disproportionately long time to play, but also fairly consistently wins. But I've also come to realize that in games with this person I end up disengaging from the gameplay in a kind of self defense so I don't gnaw my fingers to the knuckle in boredom & am definitely not playing the way I would with other like minded players. But they enjoy it and I can (just) manage it so it works. Also shows that gaming definitely exists in different contexts, some I love, some of which I'll tolerate for certain people, and others I won't touch with a ten foot pole.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2022 21:08
|
|
|
Arzaac posted:I'm sure this game is good but the art is extremely uncanny valley to me What do you mean? I've never seen a more accurate depiction of mer-cats.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2022 21:11
|
|
|
Radioactive Toy posted:I'm glad Lisa Frank was able to break into the board game industry.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2022 21:14
|
|
|
Mayveena posted:And in my opinion trying to end a game because you are losing is selfish. Let people play the game out and be a kind person It varies widely by group, person, and game. I'd never demand someone in 1830 to sell down all their shares to barely survive instead of going bankrupt, for example, but I'd also not get mad if someone chose to do so instead. I tend to go your route, myself, but I'd never begrudge someone hitting the game timer, whatever that timer may be.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2022 21:22
|
|
|
If I feel I can't win anymore, I just play the last few rounds on autopilot and do whatever would give me the best chance to win the game, no matter how impossible it is. My friends know this is how I operate, so no hard feelings and no accusation of kingmaking.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2022 22:17
|
|
|
Eraflure posted:If I feel I can't win anymore, I just play the last few rounds on autopilot and do whatever would give me the best chance to win the game, no matter how impossible it is. My friends know this is how I operate, so no hard feelings and no accusation of kingmaking. I think what you're describing is similar to what I try to do which is basically going into "AI mode" and playing as if I was just a dispassionate bot or something in a computer game that's already lost but still playing its heart out according to the rules and programming. That said, I've seen people go full on torpedo mode on top of the "gently caress it" attitude and just doing stupid wacky, game ending behaviour. None of this bugs me that much unless it's in a huge/long game and they're just being an rear end in a top hat.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2022 22:24
|
|
|
It kinda depends on the game and what kind of play but I usually get irritated whenever players in a game aren't playing to win. Like the most infuriating thing possible I saw from a player who I hated playing games with because he always did poo poo like this, was a guy who when he realized he probably couldn't win, decided to put all his effort into making one specific other player win instead. Like kingmaking is one thing and it's usually more the game's fault when a player who isn't in the race for victory is making a decision that decides who wins of the top players, but when someone deliberately torpedos the game it's a real dickhead move. I feel like rushing to end the game without regard for your own standing because you start losing is, at least potentially, kind of an rear end in a top hat move. It feels like the equivalent of "i'm losing so i'm flipping the table and don't wanna play anymore". Again it kinda depends on the game, but usually most games are designed under the implicit assumption that every player participating is attempting to win, and as soon as someone is pushing toward a different goal, suddenly the fun of the game can get ripped out from under it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2022 22:32
|
|
|
Some games don't leave any wiggle room for "trying to make progress towards winning while being out of it", though. Games with victory points? Pretty clear "try to get as many as possible". Racing games? If you can get up a place, yeah, that makes sense. 18xx games? I don't know, really. It's a heated discussion that's gone on for a while. If you're completely out of it, every decision you make helps or hurts *somebody*, and "make the most money" doesn't necessarily mean anything since the goal is to have the most money *when the game ends*, so maybe someone's trying to bankrupt you right now in order to win, and someone else is trying to have you not do so. The Great Zimbabwe? Maybe you try to get as close to your victory as possible, but that could mean deliberately letting one specific person win so that they give you extra cows so you get closer.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2022 22:42
|
|
|
The way I see it, the more entangled you are with everyone else, the harder it is to define making progress towards victory without kingmaking. I mean hell, let's say you're at the bottom of the pile in Advanced Civ. Do you target the person right ahead of you with calamity effects, trying to get a place up? Or do you target the leader? Neither has any chance of letting you win, and they may make someone mad either way. It's good to think about and maybe even discuss these things before playing games prone to someone being very out of it but still needing to make decisions that will necessarily effect the outcome of the game when unable to win.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2022 22:44
|
|
|
I always play as if the only result worth anything is first. I think it hurts games if people try to solidify a “strong second” position rather than aiming for first. However, this does mean that I have a difficult time with games where a player can be knocked out of contention without being able to resign. On some level, the design of such games is unserious for leaving players in that position. Through the Ages deserves a lot of respect for including a way to bow out of a lost game, even if it can lead to some wonky behavior.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2022 22:57
|
|
|
nrook posted:I always play as if the only result worth anything is first. I think it hurts games if people try to solidify a “strong second” position rather than aiming for first. I always play for the best position I can get. If I can win, I play to win. If I know I can't win, I play to optimise my final position.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2022 23:12
|
|
|
If you can't win and you can end the game faster by some mechanism, I think option 3 is "tell the players with a chance to win that you will be ending the game ASAP" and watch them duke it out with that knowledge. Doesn't work with all groups and all games, but definitely works with some.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2022 23:14
|
|
|
nrook posted:However, this does mean that I have a difficult time with games where a player can be knocked out of contention without being able to resign. On some level, the design of such games is unserious for leaving players in that position. One of the reasons why I think Power Grid is such a good game is, unless you've just not been paying attention throughout the whole game, it's very difficult to get into a position where you don't pose some sort of threat to somebody in the endgame, and people who do flame out in the endgame do so not because of blind luck but because they didn't think ahead or miscalculated a position (if you play with hidden money, which you should, I think). In most games I've played, most everyone is (in a meaningful, not theoretical) sense still in until the literal last couple minutes of the game. (The unfortunate practical exception is bad luck on which plants come up for auction and even that is mitigated by phase 3's greater selection.)
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2022 23:20
|
|
|
silvergoose posted:It varies widely by group, person, and game. Yes as a group decision absolutely. We rarely play out 1830 games because it's obvious who is going to win, and then yes, the group should concede and move on, we do that all the time. No, no one should have to struggle for hours through a poor train rush. To me that's on the table to deal with and be kind.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2022 23:33
|
|
|
Eraflure posted:If I feel I can't win anymore, I just play the last few rounds on autopilot and do whatever would give me the best chance to win the game, no matter how impossible it is. My friends know this is how I operate, so no hard feelings and no accusation of kingmaking. Sure absolutely I do it myself. I do have someone who I occasionally game with and this person tries to end every game quickly because they never care about the game, only about the conversation around the table. This is rude to me, and I don't game with them often. Mayveena fucked around with this message at 23:36 on Feb 4, 2022 |
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2022 23:34
|
|
|
Glagha posted:It kinda depends on the game and what kind of play but I usually get irritated whenever players in a game aren't playing to win. Like the most infuriating thing possible I saw from a player who I hated playing games with because he always did poo poo like this, was a guy who when he realized he probably couldn't win, decided to put all his effort into making one specific other player win instead. Like kingmaking is one thing and it's usually more the game's fault when a player who isn't in the race for victory is making a decision that decides who wins of the top players, but when someone deliberately torpedos the game it's a real dickhead move. I feel like rushing to end the game without regard for your own standing because you start losing is, at least potentially, kind of an rear end in a top hat move. It feels like the equivalent of "i'm losing so i'm flipping the table and don't wanna play anymore". Again it kinda depends on the game, but usually most games are designed under the implicit assumption that every player participating is attempting to win, and as soon as someone is pushing toward a different goal, suddenly the fun of the game can get ripped out from under it. That person needs to re-attend kindergarten.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2022 23:35
|
|
|
I remember playing the digital version of Talisman years ago and two players were on the final track close to the finish after the lead had been knocked out by one of those effects that sends someone to jail. The former leader then started screwing with the new lead to try to hold him back, and he got upset because he thought it was unsportsmanlike since that guy was now out of the running. At the time I remember thinking it was completely rational for everyone to target the lead player because that's what you would do if you were playing to win, and Talisman in particular has so many dumb random effects that the former leader could still pull off a win, and if all the other players did not always switch to targeting the current leader then that was in fact the bad faith play. So I guess like everyone has been saying, it's all about context.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2022 02:21
|
|
|
To flip all this around I think it highlights how many good games have mechanisms to end the game pretty quickly once someone has a decisive advantage - people used to complain about Race for the Galaxy ending before they got a chance to really run their engine more than once but IMO it’s a big strength of the game (and what makes it a “race” for the galaxy) that generally one big pump of victory points or expansion will either end the game or put it one turn away from ending, and then you get a shorter game which you can play again, every turn matters right until it doesn’t. I also agree that the contest and type of game is super important. When we play Feast for Odin it does seem like the main game is maximising your score rather than playing for win (eg it’s rare people deliberately block - as almost pointless it is in FFO), and sometimes people enjoy beating their score from last time more than taking 1st. Also, with high player count games if only victory is satisfying you will end with more unhappy people each time. I have played with exactly one person who seemed to have a “nothing but victory matters”, every other group I’ve played in people are quite keen to be third and beat the person in fourth place even if they can’t be second or first. The idea of someone rushing a game end because they can’t be first (as opposed to rushing because they have a current advantage!!) is pretty alien to me unless the game is just bad and people want to get it over with. I mean otherwise I’m enjoying it and learning how to do better next time? It would be like people in the Olympics just giving up and leaving the pool or racetrack once the first person went over the line. I mean sure, some games have just a winner and no relative placing and it should always be OK to call it if someone has clearly won, but deliberately rushing the game because you can’t win is weird. At least just leave the table maybe?
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2022 02:35
|
|
|
I started dabbling in Gaia Project on BGA after getting into playing Feast for Odin there, but not being able to stomach going back to the base game after playing with Norwegians IRL (The animal game being completely non-viable just bums me out. I want to raise sheep!) I heard a lot of good things about Gaia Project and my first few games made me feel it lived up to the hype. But I've had the exact same scenario happen four games in a row: 1. 3-player game. 1 player takes Ivits, I and the other player take whatever. 2. We all put our starting buildings next to each other in a triangle. 3. The ivits and 3rd player start building towards the corner opposite my side of the triangle, cutting off about 3 sectors of the map while leaving me with the other 5. 4. The Ivits and 3rd player bounce tons of power off each other as they develop their third of the board -- in the first three rounds I get 3-6 charge of power, while both of the other players get 12-18. 5. The Ivits breaks out of the shared corner with a significant lead in income and VP. 6. Me and the 3rd player score within 10ish% of each other. The Ivits player scores 50% higher than 2nd place. I get that I'm new to the game and probably making terrible mistakes, missing obvious plays that would score me so many more points, etc. etc. But the basic pattern of the two other players deciding to concentrate their buildings in a corner that you cannot reasonably access, and then the stronger faction (i.e. the Ivits) emerging from that thunderdome with an insurmountable lead has been pretty miserable. I guess the point of this post is: is this a regular pattern or just a freak occurrence? Is totally vital to pick a species that has the right planets to break into corners? The Ivits seem really, really strong!
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2022 05:28
|
|
|
Ivits can be an easy starter faction thanks to starting with their PI and only having one federation so they can just focus on building up instead of building wide. I don’t think they’re considered OP though. If they’re both building away from you then you should be able to save more resources than their power trading is worth given the smaller space they have to share.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2022 05:44
|
|
|
I'm making a board game about delivering packages in a merciless violent corporate hellscape. mostly it's to show off how cool my little lego death machines look, but the rule set really just requires a 3x10 matrix of squares (the size is still sort of in flux) and some tokens that fit inside those squares. should I post about it here or make a thread?
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2022 08:04
|
|
|
These threads should help you out: Board Game Design Laboratory: Igor, get the meeples TG Design/Production/Publishing: Shameless self-promotion is good, actually
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2022 11:35
|
|
|
Actualol just put out an excellent video for new hobby board gamers to help them avoid certain pitfalls. I know the average thread denizen doesn't need these tips. Still, I wanted to share it so that all of you may deploy it to some future new converts and help them avoid making the same mistakes that most of us did. 10 Mistakes Most Board Gamers Make (ignore the slightly clickbaity title, it's gold) I've also added it to the OP because I found another typo anyway 
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2022 11:59
|
|
|
So I saw the Hero Quest re-release on a shelf here today for AUD250, which is at least 200 more than I'd be tempted to pay for a nostalgia hit, but looking at the back of the box I was reminded of my biggest pet peeve with the game: the characters are Barbarian, Dwarf, Elf, and Wizard. Two of those are classes and the other two are races, dammit! "Hi, I'm a Barbarian. What do you do for a living?" "I'm a Dwarf." "Yes, I can see that. I meant what's your job?" "Dwarf." Kalko fucked around with this message at 12:02 on Feb 5, 2022 |
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2022 12:00
|
|
|
Any excuse to repost this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cx8sl2uC46A Was looking at potentially grabbing another Kallax... cause I've pretty much filled a 4x4. Why the hell isn't there a 3x3?! 
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2022 12:07
|
|
|
Kalko posted:So I saw the Hero Quest re-release on a shelf here today for AUD250, which is at least 200 more than I'd be tempted to pay for a nostalgia hit, but looking at the back of the box I was reminded of my biggest pet peeve with the game: the characters are Barbarian, Dwarf, Elf, and Wizard. Two of those are classes and the other two are races, dammit! I mean it's lifted directly from d&d1e, where elf was a class.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2022 14:15
|
|
|
I also just found out the reason why those are the four pawns in Magic Maze. By the way, anyone who hasn't played Magic Maze is missing out hard. I've taught it to a couple of groups of people over the last month, and it's been a huge hit both times. It's so frantic and ridiculous and I love it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2022 17:35
|
|
|
Infinitum posted:
There is. I own 2 of them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2022 17:42
|
|
|
silvergoose posted:I mean it's lifted directly from d&d1e, where elf was a class. It's because they couldn't legally call the classes "Legolas" and "Gimli".
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2022 18:00
|
|
|
My friend went all-in on Heroquest. I can say that without the benefit of nostalgia (the reason he got it) it's not great. Roll-to-move, martial classes get no abilities, lots of turns spent doing nothing but attacking and missing... wasn't my favourite.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2022 20:51
|
|
|
BinaryDoubts posted:My friend went all-in on Heroquest. I can say that without the benefit of nostalgia (the reason he got it) it's not great. Roll-to-move, martial classes get no abilities, lots of turns spent doing nothing but attacking and missing... wasn't my favourite. Yeah it's 100% nostalgia trap. I had a great time dm'ing it at my birthday parties as a young teenager, but can't imagine actually wanting to play now.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2022 21:22
|
|
|
I had the same experience with Warhammer Quest. Some stuff holds up, but for the most part the game being largely decided by random rolls is more of a drag than an experience generator.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2022 21:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 00:12 |
|
|
Magnetic North posted:I've also added it to the OP because I found another typo anyway Infinitum posted:These threads should help you out: I noticed because I am new to this subforum as I have recently started to gain a lot of interest in boardgame design as a hobby/creative outlet and I clicked on both links at the same time, then went searching for the other
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2022 21:33
|
|
