Board Game Thread 4e: The Call of Catan

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Traditional Games > Board Game Thread 4e: The Call of Catan

Magnetic North: Dec 15, 2008; Beware the Forest's Mushrooms

Gutter Owl posted:

"justified true belief,"

Who-boy., this is a question.

My first thought it to agree with some of the thread that think maybe the humans should have to behave differently too to help conceal the robot. It's like when my group played Spyfall (which Insider has basically 100% replaced). We forced the asker / target of the question to look at the sheet of locations because if the Spy did it, they'd be found out instantly. In this way, it sounds like a design fault. Consider the Looney Labs microgame Are You a Robot?, which is similar, except there are basically no rules or restrictions on what is said or how. You are just hanging in the breeze, but everyone is at an equal footing because it's a complete information vacuum. (I have not played this game, but I kinda want to.)

On the other hand, I think this might be a case where the philosophical approach might not work, especially when considering the game after the fact with complete information. We don't require a test to determine what is true in a game, because the truth is determined by the rules of the game. It's strictly deductive. There is no justification to say that cloth costs 7 sestertii in Concordia. I do not have to believe that a full house beats my two pair. Those are simply the case. Phrased this way, it kinda sounds like this might be the opposite of Taleb's so-called 'Ludic Fallacy' but rather than applying rules to a chaotic world that generally lacks them, we are applying discerning reasoning to a places where it has neither heft or lift.

Despite that thought, the place to dig is probably into the concept of "justified." What _actually_ justified someone's believe that someone was acting oddly? Is it as they describe with the qualitative content of their answers, or is it perhaps something minor or even subconscious about the person's tension level, expression and imperceptibly increased reaction times? Perhaps the players only think they are following their logic, but are actually following their guts.

I gotta switch computers or else I would probably type about this all night. It's a heck of a question.

# ? Mar 20, 2020 22:26

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 25, 2024 12:05

Vanilla Bison: Mar 27, 2010

Gutter Owl posted:

Got Inhuman Conditions to the table a few times before the quarantine, and it's really got me on a philosophical problem. Not like the ones the game wants to engage me on about arrest-as-violence or the targeting of vulnerable minorities or the anxiety of surveillance or whatever--I'm already a cop-hating anticarceral wonk, so all that stuff is just preaching to my choir. But it's sending me deep in the tank about epistemology and Gettier problems and the game design problems of a satisfying victory.

See, the Gettier problem is this: Epistemologists traditionally define knowledge as "justified true belief," but there *are* things that you can believe, and you can have justification for that belief, and which can turn out to be true, but are not "knowledge." Edmund Gettier, in challenging that definition, put forward a particular strange example:

(from Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal by Zach Wienersmith)

Okay, that's cute and all, but what am I getting at?

So in Inhuman Conditions, one player is the Investigator, and one is the Suspect. The Investigator must interrogate the Suspect to determine whether they're a robot or a human. The Suspect wants the Investigator to believe they're a human. (Or kill the investigator. There's other wrinkles involved, but that's the elevator pitch). Humans have no special rules, but robots are stuck with specific communication restrictions: either things can't do or say, or obsessions that they are compelled to do or say.

In a strange majority of our games, the Investigator picks up on a quirk in the Suspects behavior (justified) and stamps them as a Robot (belief). And the suspect *IS* a Robot, and the Investigator wins (true). But when the robot reveals their restriction, it's something totally different from what the Investigator noticed, and the real restriction flew entirely over the investigator's head.

(An example. I was the Suspect, my roommate was the investigator, playing the Creative Problem Solving scenario. I had drawn a character prompt that said I was a retired athlete, so I pretended to be a tennis star. They noticed I spoke about my joints a couple times, and stamped robot, thinking I was a violent robot obsessed with certain body parts. I was actually a patient robot who couldn't describe *myself* as doing something or taking an action.)

So the question I've been flipping around in my head is, is this a design flaw? And does the flaw make Inhuman Conditions a bad game? Because the scenario above is kind of unsatisfying!

But also, only kind of??? Because I started rambling about my joints because I was floundering around a bit on a really good question the Investigator caught me with. (Specifically, he asked: "If I decided to have you killed right now, how would you try to escape?" And I struggled to avoid answering the question and claimed my knee injury would make escaping pointless, and that convinced him I was a toaster.) So is that a a skilled play on my opponent's part, or a disappointing lucky coinflip? Does it matter, ludologically? Is it a game problem, or a me problem, or even a problem at all?

It's a game about acting natural despite a set of goals or restrictions. The Investigator picked up that you were operating under restrictions and nailed you for it. If that's just not satisfying enough, that seems like your problem with the game's approach, which is a valid reason not to play but not an inherent flaw. It seems a bit like if you're playing A Fake Artist Goes to New York or Spyfall and someone's input isn't suspicious in isolation, but they're acting so suspiciously uncertain about it that they out themselves as the fake. There are some people who would feel like they got unfairly screwed in that situation since their answers were "correct" but lying smoothly is part of lying well.

# ? Mar 20, 2020 23:05

pospysyl: Nov 10, 2012

Vanilla Bison posted:

It's a game about acting natural despite a set of goals or restrictions. The Investigator picked up that you were operating under restrictions and nailed you for it. If that's just not satisfying enough, that seems like your problem with the game's approach, which is a valid reason not to play but not an inherent flaw. It seems a bit like if you're playing A Fake Artist Goes to New York or Spyfall and someone's input isn't suspicious in isolation, but they're acting so suspiciously uncertain about it that they out themselves as the fake. There are some people who would feel like they got unfairly screwed in that situation since their answers were "correct" but lying smoothly is part of lying well.

But if the game is just about lying well then what distinguishes this game from any other hidden traitor game? It'd be like playing The Resistance, but instead of voting on stuff the players just say they're not the rebels or saboteurs or whatever and hope the other players believe them. I'm not familiar with the game, so maybe there actually is a game there and it's not just an exercise in collaborative bluffing.

# ? Mar 21, 2020 01:02

nrook: Jun 25, 2009; Just let yourself become a worthless person!

The best time I�ve ever had playing a social deduction game was playing a hastily thrown together version of Win Lose Banana at a bar using three paper coasters. It cuts out all the boring �deduction� to focus on what�s really important: loudly trying to convince your friend that you�re a banana with no basis in reality whatsoever.

# ? Mar 21, 2020 01:14

silvergoose: Mar 18, 2006; IT IS SAID THE TEARS OF THE BWEENIX CAN HEAL ALL WOUNDS

I mean for that the most fun for me was Cockroach Poker, because there's a bit of strategy then you just slide the card over to someone and very intensely intone "This is...a spider."

Then try not to crack up and/or hide.

# ? Mar 21, 2020 01:16

Vanilla Bison: Mar 27, 2010

pospysyl posted:

But if the game is just about lying well then what distinguishes this game from any other hidden traitor game? It'd be like playing The Resistance, but instead of voting on stuff the players just say they're not the rebels or saboteurs or whatever and hope the other players believe them. I'm not familiar with the game, so maybe there actually is a game there and it's not just an exercise in collaborative bluffing.

It's distinct by being a totally focused 1-on-1 interrogation game. There's a lot less of that out there than Werewolf/Mafia derivatives. I wouldn't even put it in the same genre as The Resistance.

Edit: I should mention I don't like The Resistance because I feel like its gameplay is almost exactly "say you're not the scum team and hope everyone else believes you."

Vanilla Bison fucked around with this message at 01:37 on Mar 21, 2020

# ? Mar 21, 2020 01:31

Jabor: Jul 16, 2010; #1 Loser at SpaceChem

So if the suspect is human, but fails to convince the interrogator of that fact, what happens? Do both players lose?

Perhaps an answer would be to also give human suspects something to hide - a secret that they don't want to tell the investigator. Then the investigator's game isn't about figuring out if the suspect is answering their questions in a weird way (because they're doing that to some extent regardless) - it's about figuring out whether they're doing so because of a behavioural restriction (meaning they're a robot), or because of a secret they don't want to reveal (meaning they're a human).

Or perhaps the answer is to embrace the metagame and be slightly subversive when you're a human suspect, so that the interrogator has a harder time when you're a robot. This only works when you're playing repeatedly, of course.

# ? Mar 21, 2020 01:50

mila kunis: Jun 10, 2011

What's a good place online to play games with friends with? I went back to BGA after a long time away and apparently now you have to be a 'premium' member and pay to start games

# ? Mar 21, 2020 02:36

Vanilla Bison: Mar 27, 2010

Jabor posted:

So if the suspect is human, but fails to convince the interrogator of that fact, what happens? Do both players lose?

Perhaps an answer would be to also give human suspects something to hide - a secret that they don't want to tell the investigator. Then the investigator's game isn't about figuring out if the suspect is answering their questions in a weird way (because they're doing that to some extent regardless) - it's about figuring out whether they're doing so because of a behavioural restriction (meaning they're a robot), or because of a secret they don't want to reveal (meaning they're a human).

Or perhaps the answer is to embrace the metagame and be slightly subversive when you're a human suspect, so that the interrogator has a harder time when you're a robot. This only works when you're playing repeatedly, of course.

If the Suspect is human, both players either win together with a Human verdict or lose together with a wrong Robot verdict. Clouding things for Human play just turns it into a guessing game instead of an interrogation. What makes the game interesting is primarily how the Robot rules interact with the question prompts to create conversational challenges, and hard it is to prove that you're not being affected by any.

The game already has tension from the time limit and the Violent Robot mechanic. For half the Robots their conversation rules are a checklist to complete instead of restrictions to obey, and they win by completing that checklist then slamming the table to kill the Investigator. The Investigator wants to make a Robot verdict as quickly as possible to prevent that but without jumping the gun.

Vanilla Bison fucked around with this message at 19:26 on Mar 21, 2020

# ? Mar 21, 2020 02:43

Radioactive Toy: Sep 14, 2005; Nothing has ever happened here, nothing.

mila kunis posted:

What's a good place online to play games with friends with? I went back to BGA after a long time away and apparently now you have to be a 'premium' member and pay to start games

I believe this is just some games, not all. I started a Tash-Kalar game last week and was not premium.

# ? Mar 21, 2020 04:55

Cthulhu Dreams: Dec 11, 2010; If I pretend to be Cthulhu no one will know I'm a baseball robot.

mila kunis posted:

What's a good place online to play games with friends with? I went back to BGA after a long time away and apparently now you have to be a 'premium' member and pay to start games

Only if the game is one of the small number of games market as premium, or the servers are overloaded.

# ? Mar 21, 2020 06:10

El Fideo: Jun 10, 2016; I trusted a rhino and deserve all that came to me

There are nineteen Premium games, out of the hundred and fifty-ish games they have. Frankly, I wouldn't blame them if they did set it so that only Premiums can start any games, because they are getting slammed right now.

# ? Mar 21, 2020 09:08

taser rates: Mar 30, 2010

admanb posted:

Clearclaw would never in a million years.

GMTs more the problem here I believe, given what they've said about the kinds of games they want.

# ? Mar 21, 2020 09:28

James The 1st: Feb 23, 2013

Bellmaker posted:

Oh hey this exists now: Lehmann's follow up to 46: https://www.gmtgames.com/p-864-1833ne.aspx

My lifetime dream has finally been realized: The 6/9 train nice

How is 1846? I've been looking to get back into the 18xx games but it has been a while. Is 1833 similar to 1846?

# ? Mar 21, 2020 18:07

cenotaph: Mar 2, 2013

It's kind of weird that GMT seems to want the euroy end of the 18xx spectrum especially considering that their other euro game offerings are fairly aggressive. Although I don't know enough about the Australian xx to know where it fits in.

# ? Mar 21, 2020 22:32

cenotaph: Mar 2, 2013

I really wanted GMT to publish 18xx but this is some monkey's paw poo poo for me.

# ? Mar 21, 2020 22:33

dishwasherlove: Nov 26, 2007; The ultimate fusion of man and machine.

I know that this is not a rail god opinion but after dabbling in some heavier 18XX games (17, 28) I am actually OK with having a title like 1846 on my shelf. Where it's a 'beer and pretzels' kinda 18XX game which you can know out in 3 hours. Some people say that the decision space is a little narrow but I think with the random companies you'll get enough plays out of it to make it value for money. Will be interested to see if the new privates coming will mix the game up a bit. In saying that maybe Chesapeake or NE will take its position when they come out.

I honestly think when you compare 18XX games you just have to compare titles with the same average playtime. No point comparing '46 to '30.

GMT publishing 18XX basically had to flow on effect of AAG going mainstream, and now GTG will publish 1889 so it hasn't been that bad.

# ? Mar 22, 2020 01:01

Chill la Chill: Jul 2, 2007; Don't lose your gay

dishwasherlove posted:

I know that this is not a rail god opinion but after dabbling in some heavier 18XX games (17, 28) I am actually OK with having a title like 1846 on my shelf. Where it's a 'beer and pretzels' kinda 18XX game which you can know out in 3 hours. Some people say that the decision space is a little narrow but I think with the random companies you'll get enough plays out of it to make it value for money. Will be interested to see if the new privates coming will mix the game up a bit. In saying that maybe Chesapeake or NE will take its position when they come out.

I honestly think when you compare 18XX games you just have to compare titles with the same average playtime. No point comparing '46 to '30.

GMT publishing 18XX basically had to flow on effect of AAG going mainstream, and now GTG will publish 1889 so it hasn't been that bad.

You should try 1849 :getin:

# ? Mar 22, 2020 01:11

Magnetic North: Dec 15, 2008; Beware the Forest's Mushrooms

Just bought and played Through The Ages on Steam. Ooh, that game is really something. I know the computer was braindead, but declaring war to steal all his science and then using that to change my government into a fundamentalist state to make the next war even worse was very satisfying.

# ? Mar 22, 2020 01:19

Stelas: Sep 6, 2010

The first thread was fun so I decided to run a 'proper' adventure from Mansions of Madness. Thread's over here.

# ? Mar 22, 2020 02:09

dishwasherlove: Nov 26, 2007; The ultimate fusion of man and machine.

Chill la Chill posted:

You should try 1849

I really should and will get the AAG print when it happens. Although if I wanted to play a short but miserable game I would just masturbate and cry.

# ? Mar 22, 2020 02:49

Control Volume: Dec 31, 2008

Gutter Owl posted:

Got Inhuman Conditions to the table a few times before the quarantine, and it's really got me on a philosophical problem. Not like the ones the game wants to engage me on about arrest-as-violence or the targeting of vulnerable minorities or the anxiety of surveillance or whatever--I'm already a cop-hating anticarceral wonk, so all that stuff is just preaching to my choir. But it's sending me deep in the tank about epistemology and Gettier problems and the game design problems of a satisfying victory.

See, the Gettier problem is this: Epistemologists traditionally define knowledge as "justified true belief," but there *are* things that you can believe, and you can have justification for that belief, and which can turn out to be true, but are not "knowledge." Edmund Gettier, in challenging that definition, put forward a particular strange example:

(from Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal by Zach Wienersmith)

Okay, that's cute and all, but what am I getting at?

So in Inhuman Conditions, one player is the Investigator, and one is the Suspect. The Investigator must interrogate the Suspect to determine whether they're a robot or a human. The Suspect wants the Investigator to believe they're a human. (Or kill the investigator. There's other wrinkles involved, but that's the elevator pitch). Humans have no special rules, but robots are stuck with specific communication restrictions: either things can't do or say, or obsessions that they are compelled to do or say.

In a strange majority of our games, the Investigator picks up on a quirk in the Suspects behavior (justified) and stamps them as a Robot (belief). And the suspect *IS* a Robot, and the Investigator wins (true). But when the robot reveals their restriction, it's something totally different from what the Investigator noticed, and the real restriction flew entirely over the investigator's head.

(An example. I was the Suspect, my roommate was the investigator, playing the Creative Problem Solving scenario. I had drawn a character prompt that said I was a retired athlete, so I pretended to be a tennis star. They noticed I spoke about my joints a couple times, and stamped robot, thinking I was a violent robot obsessed with certain body parts. I was actually a patient robot who couldn't describe *myself* as doing something or taking an action.)

So the question I've been flipping around in my head is, is this a design flaw? And does the flaw make Inhuman Conditions a bad game? Because the scenario above is kind of unsatisfying!

But also, only kind of??? Because I started rambling about my joints because I was floundering around a bit on a really good question the Investigator caught me with. (Specifically, he asked: "If I decided to have you killed right now, how would you try to escape?" And I struggled to avoid answering the question and claimed my knee injury would make escaping pointless, and that convinced him I was a toaster.) So is that a a skilled play on my opponent's part, or a disappointing lucky coinflip? Does it matter, ludologically? Is it a game problem, or a me problem, or even a problem at all?

What if the game was disappointing for other underlying reasons that you havent consciously realized yet? How much psychic damage would that do?

# ? Mar 22, 2020 04:58

cenotaph: Mar 2, 2013

dishwasherlove posted:

I know that this is not a rail god opinion but after dabbling in some heavier 18XX games (17, 28) I am actually OK with having a title like 1846 on my shelf. Where it's a 'beer and pretzels' kinda 18XX game which you can know out in 3 hours. Some people say that the decision space is a little narrow but I think with the random companies you'll get enough plays out of it to make it value for money. Will be interested to see if the new privates coming will mix the game up a bit. In saying that maybe Chesapeake or NE will take its position when they come out.

I honestly think when you compare 18XX games you just have to compare titles with the same average playtime. No point comparing '46 to '30.

GMT publishing 18XX basically had to flow on effect of AAG going mainstream, and now GTG will publish 1889 so it hasn't been that bad.

I think small, short 18xx could be very viable (62 can get fast with repeated plays) and I don't mind them being lighter. It's just that 46 is kind of annoying with the $20 track lays and the constant minor, uninteresting calculations it entails. It's like Power Grid and I don't particularly want to play longer, heavier Power Grid. I should probably sell my copy.

# ? Mar 22, 2020 05:57

rchandra: Apr 30, 2013

cenotaph posted:

46 . It's like Power Grid and I don't particularly want to play longer, heavier Power Grid. I should probably sell my copy.

It's funny how I constantly have to remind myself that it's OK for people to have different tastes and this doesn't mean I'm a bad gamer for liking 1846 over 1830. Still would like to try other stocky or weird ones for the experience.

I like Power Grid and longer, heavier PG is absolutely great (I'd put Age of Steam into that category, too - love it). What is it about human nature that makes us want to "defend" our choices?

# ? Mar 22, 2020 12:37

Casnorf: Jun 14, 2002; Never drive a car when you're a fish

rchandra posted:

What is it about human nature that makes us want to "defend" our choices?

I know this is sort of a rhetorical question but I think the answer can inform a lot of how we approach daily life, especially now that much of our social interaction is coming through relatively anonymous media.

Anyway, it's kind of a question of how much do you trust yourself and your decision-making process. Personal accountability, really, in that if you made the decision to enjoy a thing you then must necessarily be responsible for the consequences (good or bad!) of having made that decision. It's often not enough to say "I like this because I like it and that's enough for me" because if someone else doesn't, you might be wrong somehow! Not you personally probably, just a generic you here. Being wrong is tough to take in nearly any context--despite it not being inherently bad per se it does mean you must turn the baleful eye of criticism inward and possibly (possibly) affect personal change. That's hard! Why would anyone want to do things that are hard when so much of everything else is already hard? It's much easier to argue and defend the position you already have than to reassess whether the one you chose before was accurate. Haha, path of least resistance. Humans are electric!

I really like Seafall and the Fallout board game. I can tell you why or justify or defend that position in myriad ways but at the end of the day I like them and whether you like them or not has no bearing on whether I do. The only thing our differing opinions can affect is whether you play either with me. Fortunately I can play Fallout solo, haha. Maybe if the quarantine goes on long enough I can get Seafall back out again.

# ? Mar 22, 2020 14:11

Mr. Squishy: Mar 22, 2010; A country where you can always get richer.

Why would you waste energy assessing if you're thoughts are correct, rather than make an initial one essentially arbitrarily and then defend it if ever challenged.

# ? Mar 22, 2020 15:04

jesus WEP: Oct 17, 2004

You don�t have to defend what you like and you don�t even have to listen to any challenges to what you like. If you enjoy thing then that�s good enough

# ? Mar 22, 2020 15:06

Magnetic North: Dec 15, 2008; Beware the Forest's Mushrooms

jesus WEP posted:

You don�t have to defend what you like and you don�t even have to listen to any challenges to what you like. If you enjoy thing then that�s good enough

This is a good attitude to have, and works until you get people who equivocate "I like this" and "this is good", intentionally or otherwise.

# ? Mar 22, 2020 15:27

uncle blog: Nov 18, 2012

Outside of Tabletop Simulator, what are some good digital board games? Both playable solo, and also online with - isolated - friends?

I've heard good things about Ticket to Ride, so might check that out as I'm quite fond of that game, despite its simplicity.

# ? Mar 22, 2020 15:52

rchandra: Apr 30, 2013

uncle blog posted:

Outside of Tabletop Simulator, what are some good digital board games? Both playable solo, and also online with - isolated - friends?

I've heard good things about Ticket to Ride, so might check that out as I'm quite fond of that game, despite its simplicity.

Through the Ages (Steam, android, IOS) - AIs, async, and live - many challenge modes with unique situations.
Twilight Struggle (Steam, not sure if also mobile) - live or async
Dominion (dominion.games) - live only, only one subscriber for expansions.

rchandra fucked around with this message at 16:34 on Mar 22, 2020

# ? Mar 22, 2020 15:57

Mojo Jojo: Sep 21, 2005

Yeah, I'm very interested in anything that can be played online and asynchronously. Ideally in such a way that doesn't require every user to buy their own copy.

# ? Mar 22, 2020 16:19

silvergoose: Mar 18, 2006; IT IS SAID THE TEARS OF THE BWEENIX CAN HEAL ALL WOUNDS

Mojo Jojo posted:

Yeah, I'm very interested in anything that can be played online and asynchronously. Ideally in such a way that doesn't require every user to buy their own copy.

Look at the conglomerate sites then. Boitajeux, boardgamearena, some others.

# ? Mar 22, 2020 16:24

Mr. Squishy: Mar 22, 2010; A country where you can always get richer.

some others include boardgamecore (Food Chain Magnate) and slothninja (Indonesia). I'm also a big fan of Dominion.games with "Wait for Expansions" toggled, though that is not asynch.

# ? Mar 22, 2020 16:40

jmzero: Jul 24, 2007

Played a few rounds of The Crew: Search for Planet Nine.

Seems really solid. Rules explanation is super short for anyone who has played a trick taking game. Game gives you lots of levers for strategic play. All the rules/mechanisms seem very well thought out (while remaining super lightweight) - and I think the skill ceiling will be really high for a group that gets into it. It was really fun to play through the first few games with other new players, and discover the broad outlines of basic strategy.

I've avoided Hanabi for a while - I think the Crew hits most of the same good notes, while having a much more interesting base game.

# ? Mar 22, 2020 17:05

Magnetic North: Dec 15, 2008; Beware the Forest's Mushrooms

silvergoose posted:

Look at the conglomerate sites then. Boitajeux, boardgamearena, some others.

Also Yucata.

# ? Mar 22, 2020 17:08

silvergoose: Mar 18, 2006; IT IS SAID THE TEARS OF THE BWEENIX CAN HEAL ALL WOUNDS

jmzero posted:

Played a few rounds of The Crew: Search for Planet Nine.

Seems really solid. Rules explanation is super short for anyone who has played a trick taking game. Game gives you lots of levers for strategic play. All the rules/mechanisms seem very well thought out (while remaining super lightweight) - and I think the skill ceiling will be really high for a group that gets into it. It was really fun to play through the first few games with other new players, and discover the broad outlines of basic strategy.

I've avoided Hanabi for a while - I think the Crew hits most of the same good notes, while having a much more interesting base game.

I think I've said it before, but I find Hanabi to be stressful to the point of not enjoying it, while The Crew is absolutely perfect for me. Losing is a 3 minute proposition, giving information is helpful but but not quite as incredibly impactful (and so if you miss what someone is trying to get you to do, you may still finish), variety from different missions is nice. Mine is arriving Tuesday, not that we have enough adults at home to play. The 5yo probably can't quite yet.

# ? Mar 22, 2020 17:20

Mayveena: Dec 27, 2006; People keep vandalizing my ID photo; I've lodged a complaint with HR

Magnetic North posted:

This is a good attitude to have, and works until you get people who equivocate "I like this" and "this is good", intentionally or otherwise.

Well people don't generally like bad games, so you can see why this happens. If I like a game, it's good by definition right? I think this thread can understand liking bad games, but most people are not going to admit to liking bad anything including games. (Trump syndrome). So I can forgive people for that. It's just when you like a game they think is bad, they jump on you, then that's an issue.

# ? Mar 22, 2020 18:23

Lord Of Texas: Dec 26, 2006

rchandra posted:

Through the Ages (Steam, android, IOS) - AIs, async, and live - many challenge modes with unique situations.
Twilight Struggle (Steam, not sure if also mobile) - live or async
Dominion (dominion.games) - live only, only one subscriber for expansions.

Terra Mystica iOS app is quite good for solo play against the AI
Star Realms is an excellent digital implementation of a good, quick game

# ? Mar 22, 2020 18:43

Casnorf: Jun 14, 2002; Never drive a car when you're a fish

Mayveena posted:

Well people don't generally like bad games, so you can see why this happens.

People like bad games all the time. I'd wager more people like bad games than good ones. Of course if you wanna get into the nebulous and dangerous area of what's good and what's bad, oh, have we got some fun arguin' ahead of us. Y'did touch on a real issue, though, the conflation of cause and effect. There's a world of difference between "I like this game so I don't think it's bad" and "This game cannot be bad because I like it."

# ? Mar 22, 2020 20:48

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 25, 2024 12:05

mellifluous: Jun 28, 2007

Casnorf posted:

People like bad games all the time. I'd wager more people like bad games than good ones. Of course if you wanna get into the nebulous and dangerous area of what's good and what's bad, oh, have we got some fun arguin' ahead of us. Y'did touch on a real issue, though, the conflation of cause and effect. There's a world of difference between "I like this game so I don't think it's bad" and "This game cannot be bad because I like it."

I'm not trying to open a can of worms, but I'd be interested in what this thread considers bad. I'm pretty new to board games, and I probably enjoy bad games. (I can't be sure because I don't have a handle on what this thread dislikes. (Besides Munchkin, I think. And I don't like Munchkin.))

I don't care if I have bad taste as long as I enjoy the game, but I am interested in hearing what mechanics or concepts make a game bad.

# ? Mar 22, 2020 23:14

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Traditional Games > Board Game Thread 4e: The Call of Catan

«‹›2842 »