|
Your argument is disingenuous. A game is literally a series of victory conditions and restrictions of how to achieve them. To play a game "to win" is to use the product in the most fundamental sense. It's possible to enjoy games in other ways, but if a game fails to be good when played to win then it is a bad game by the clearest possible system of measurement. Alternatively, I will not fault you for wearing pizza on your head. Do what you want! Not everybody buys pizza so they can eat it. But if a particular pizza makes a particularly lovely meal, then that pizza is a bad pizza via a measurement that overrides all others. Additionally, recommending a bad pizza because it makes a good hat is disingenuous.
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 23:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 01:38 |
|
|
Prairie Bus posted:I enjoy winning, but my reason for playing is not to test my skill or dominate others - it's the act itself. That's a perfectly fine reason to play games, but doesn't excuse and isn't particularly helpful for critically examining poor mechanics or rulesets. As far as design intent is concerned, you have to evaluate them based on their stated goal that one person will win the game given X and Y conditions. Put another way, if you compare two games based on a goal of 'sit at a table and play a game' then Tiddlywinks is suddenly equal to Twilight Struggle.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 23:34
|
|
|
Prairie Bus posted:So I don't believe that having the potential of cheaters cheating makes a game bad. It makes it worse for a certain kind of player. But so do traitor mechanics, front loaded rules, player interaction, whatever. Would you care for a game of poker? I'll deal and PM you your hand and the flop, turn and river. Say, 10$ minimum bet?
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 23:39
|
|
|
Broken Loose posted:Your argument is disingenuous. I'd say it's less disingenuous than yours is hyperbolic. There's objectives in the game, and then there's purpose in playing the game. When I think about games, I find both avenues are important to consider. I'm not saying pizzas go on heads, I'm saying that pizza can be eaten instead of an actual healthy meal. The healthy meal fulfills the objective of eating calories to sustain life, but that is hardly the only factor in deciding which is a better meal. Stepping away from that analogy, the possibility of cheating certainly thwarts the objectives in the game, but critical thought of play extends well beyond that. A game does not live or die on its end state. I have never thought that, having not won, I have failed to "use the product in its most fundamental sense." To turn to a tired cliche, the purpose of play is in the journey, the play itself, and not in the destination. Thinking critically about the play on its own terms, and not in relation to its end state, is critically important to understanding games. And play is certainly informed by more than the objectives in game. E: phone posting
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 23:50
|
|
|
Lotta words when you could have just said fun.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 23:56
|
|
|
Crackbone posted:Lotta words when you could have just said fun. But it's not "fun" -that's a reductive understanding that misses the point. There's so much space for critical thought about games and play beyond confining everything to end state conditions.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 23:58
|
|
|
I agree with the premise that "cheating is a spectrum" but also that locks/competition are a spectrum. If I play poker in a casino/tournament, I want professional shuffles, new cards, the works. If we're playing casual poker night, I don't need them to throw out the deck every few shuffles or use a mechanical shuffler or whatever. Poker at casual poker night with less locks is not a bad game vs casino poker, at least the way I see it. Likewise, if I'm playing Magic or something in a tournament with money on the line and a bunch of strangers, I want judges, I want my opponent to get a game loss if they are taking too long/stalling, you better believe I'm shuffling your deck, etc. If I'm just playing someone in a more casual environment, I'm not going to time the match unless preparing for a tournament (although I will cut your deck, dammit)* And yeah, I don't really care that someone could lie in Love Letter or peek through their hand in Resistance, the chances of someone doing that are so low that it's not worth sweating it, for me. Insert some metaphor here about locks, and about legalizing drugs, heh *I'm kind of realizing this could devolve into the "virtually all tabletop games are 'unlocked' when it comes to stalling" argument again
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 23:58
|
|
|
fozzy fosbourne posted:Poker at casual poker night with less locks is not a bad game vs casino poker, at least the way I see it. If someone had designed Texas Hold'em as "you are dealt 5 cards, but the first 2 cards are your actual cards and the other ones you don't use [and then the rest of normal hold'em]" that would be a much poorer game design, because some people would be tempted to (and easily could) simply switch which cards they show down with when they realize their dead cards make a better hand. You would think, hmm, this is a fun game, but they should design it better, like what if they just only give you the 2 cards?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 00:07
|
|
|
Prairie Bus posted:But it's not "fun" -that's a reductive understanding that misses the point. There's so much space for critical thought about food and flavor beyond confining everything to being eaten.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 00:08
|
|
|
Prairie Bus posted:But it's not "fun" -that's a reductive understanding that misses the point. It's just as reductive, in an attempt to critically compare rules systems, as going 'the stated goal of the rules doesn't matter', because at that point you can excuse absolutely anything based on whatever arbitrary goal you decide to give the game. You can sit at a table and play any game and enjoy the interactions around that game however you like, cool, but that doesn't mean that the rules of the game are well designed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 00:11
|
|
|
I worry less about cheating to win than cheating to play, i.e. in games where you require luck to do anything. Two hours of bad dice rolling will make lots of people cheat just to make something happen.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 00:28
|
|
|
PerniciousKnid posted:I worry less about cheating to win than cheating to play, i.e. in games where you require luck to do anything. Two hours of bad dice rolling will make lots of people cheat just to make something happen. This is my precise example with Dark Moon. Since player agency is entirely locked to what the dice provide, it's very possible for you to simply not be allowed to make any decisions during the game. Even worse when the game's as long as DM.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 00:32
|
|
|
For the record, I haven't seen a game spawn a discussion this circular and turgid since loving Panic Station, which has almost the exact same goddamn problems as Dark Moon.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 00:33
|
|
|
Elysium posted:If someone had designed Texas Hold'em as "you are dealt 5 cards, but the first 2 cards are your actual cards and the other ones you don't use [and then the rest of normal hold'em]" that would be a much poorer game design, because some people would be tempted to (and easily could) simply switch which cards they show down with when they realize their dead cards make a better hand. You would think, hmm, this is a fun game, but they should design it better, like what if they just only give you the 2 cards? Yeah, totally agree. That's an example of no compromise being made, though. I think everyone would agree with that being bad design. I think it's more interesting when there is a compromise being made. Like what if I said, "we're only playing Resistance if we wear sleeping masks". Or, "I peeked when we played Resistance because the game is asking for it! I knew I could get away with it! Bad game!" Also, Dark Moon sounds like it's just bad, lol
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 00:50
|
|
|
Broken Loose posted:Your argument is disingenuous. Fun Tangent - The German word for 'Hat' is 'Hut', and German children think it is hilarious to go to Pizza Hut and put pizza on their heads.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 01:00
|
|
|
Fat Samurai posted:Would you care for a game of poker? I'll deal and PM you your hand and the flop, turn and river. If you're putting money down on a game of Dark Moon something has gone horribly, terribly wrong in your life.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 01:44
|
|
|
Are Habba Eggs fun? It seems like a goofy party game and time filler that adds a cool twist to dexterity games and would be improved with drinking. Loopin' Chewie was a big hit over the weekend for this very reason, and Click Clack was sort of a bust with my group, so I'd like to find a replacement.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 01:53
|
|
|
Broken Loose posted:For the record, I haven't seen a game spawn a discussion this circular and turgid since loving Panic Station, which has almost the exact same goddamn problems as Dark Moon. Says the man who brought it up in the first place by quoting himself. Anyway, really hoping to get Codenames to the table. Managed to get a copy, but then my group was off last week due to the holiday. It's been sitting there waiting. Watching.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 03:16
|
|
|
It's not the board game thread if we aren't arguing in circles about a game none of us even claim to like.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 03:22
|
|
|
Scyther posted:It's not the board game thread if we aren't arguing in circles about a game none of us even claim to like. I'm just going to post this here and spoiler what it's from. quote:In this era, most people will go looking online for opinions and discussions about games to discern what they may enjoy. These people are in a bit of a lurch. Many discussions of board game theory, especially as an extension of game theory at large, are caught between two poles. On one end, academic discussion of game theory is often dense, cryptic, theoretical, and focused on design issues or hypothetical situations that the consumer has very little interest in. On the other hand, hobbyist discussion on the Internet tends to be acerbic at the best of times, while outright hostile towards newcomers at the worst. Someone earnestly coming into a discussion asking for suggestions of games similar to Monopoly or Munchkin, which they find enjoyable, could very well be met with extremely colorful language and inventive suggestions as to where to put those games. One of my grad papers that composes a class's term project. And who says you can't have some fun in academia? To be exact, it's a paper about information needs and information seeking behavior, and I got assigned to write about games 'cause my 'introduce yourself' bio mentioned I like nerd games.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 03:31
|
|
|
We finally played Mysterium today. We enjoyed it quite a bit, enough to play it four times in a row so everyone got to be the ghost. However, it kind of scratches the same itch as Codenames but with a bit more work and not as elegantly. It does have a lot more chrome, though. We'll probably mix it in from time to time. It doesn't seem like it would hold up to as much sustained play with the same group since we started learning to associate past clues with certain things after a few games. I'd probably buy an expansion. Since they are behind a screen, it's also probably pretty easy to intentionally cheat as the ghost, if that's a concern, but it doesn't seem too prone to accidentally cheating if you know the rules.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 03:45
|
|
|
I played a 9 player game of Camel Up with non-gamers and it went pretty well. Camel Cup is a good game, and I highly recommend it to anyone who likes family-weight games. Now if only I have a chance to actually add anything from the expansion, Camel Up: Supercup I bought 3 months ago ;_;
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 04:11
|
|
|
fozzy fosbourne posted:It doesn't seem like it would hold up to as much sustained play with the same group since we started learning to associate past clues with certain things after a few games. I'd probably buy an expansion. This often kills the guesser, when associating a piece of a clue with something from the past that happens to not work out right and totally mislead.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 04:17
|
|
|
fozzy fosbourne posted:We finally played Mysterium today. We enjoyed it quite a bit, enough to play it four times in a row so everyone got to be the ghost. However, it kind of scratches the same itch as Codenames but with a bit more work and not as elegantly. It does have a lot more chrome, though. We'll probably mix it in from time to time. It doesn't seem like it would hold up to as much sustained play with the same group since we started learning to associate past clues with certain things after a few games. I'd probably buy an expansion. I haven't been the ghost yet, but how can they cheat? Drawing more cards for better clues?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 04:28
|
|
|
Or rearranging the "correct answers" to have somebody be correct when they shouldn't be. It's nontrivial because you can hear them sliding cards in and out of pockets and it does look odd if they're fiddling behind the screen, but there's nothing stopping people from letting you proceed when you shouldn't be able to. Of course, this leads to all the previous cheating discussion and wasn't possible in the open-reveal style of the unscreened game, but having a screen is pretty much objectively way better so...
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 04:34
|
|
|
I suppose the ghost could easily slip a few extra vision cards off the deck without anyone knowing. It isn't necessary to keep the deck and hand behind the screen, though, even though that's how I played it due to space issues. I think cheating in a co-op game is a different beast from a competitive game, since in co-op the other players have an incentive to let your actions slip through the cracks. Gimnbo fucked around with this message at 05:22 on Nov 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 05:19
|
|
|
Yeah, that's probably true. We got all ornery though with people boasting about how much better of a ghost they would be or how much someone else's clues sucked  . A lot of the clues seem pretty terrible if you haven't been a ghost yourself and experienced staring at a pile of bizarre utter poo poo in your hand. I doubt cheating even crossed anyone's mind but I thought of it while reading this thread since there is a screen and all
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 05:39
|
|
|
What was the consensus on Temporum? I remember some excitement when it came out since it was by the Dominion designer, but I've never had the chance to play it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 06:44
|
|
|
mr sad posted:What was the consensus on Temporum? I remember some excitement when it came out since it was by the Dominion designer, but I've never had the chance to play it. It's just... it just feels really boring. Maybe if I put a lot more time into it I'd see into the matrix or whatever and have a great time but nothing about it excites me and every time I bring it with me somewhere I secretly hope someone offers me $25 cash for it or something.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 06:49
|
|
|
Temporum is okay if you can get it cheap. I paid too much for it. :/
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 07:59
|
|
|
mr sad posted:What was the consensus on Temporum? I remember some excitement when it came out since it was by the Dominion designer, but I've never had the chance to play it. It somehow transplants the feeling of Dominion into a shared single deck game. I don't think I'll ever play my copy again, now that you mention it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 11:31
|
|
|
Temporum is ok but limited, yea. I do want to see what he does in the expansion he's working on, but I'm probably going to end up selling mine off as well.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 12:26
|
|
|
NRVNQSR posted:If you're putting money down on a game of Dark Moon something has gone horribly, terribly wrong in your life. That's why I specified poker. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 12:33
|
|
|
Coolstuff has Eminent Domain for 16 bucks which is pretty darn good. I also picked up the Twin Shadows expansion for ImpAss as well as Patchistory. I remember a lot of hype about it from a year or so ago, then it wasn't available for a while and I forgot about it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 14:50
|
|
|
Patchistory is really good, but really weird too, for a civ style game.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 14:55
|
|
|
I really enjoy patchistory but it's super fiddly, interesting game though. Played it a few times and never bought it, but a couple friends own it and I'm pretty much always willing to give it a shot.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 15:10
|
|
|
A bunch of my cards have bent in the heat. Is there a way to reverse this, short of piling heavy books on them? Will sleeving help prevent it? The group next to us the other day were playing Food Chain Magnate. Apart from the sprawl of the game (about four feet by five) and the tiny box it all went back into at the end, is it any good? It looked complex and all the cards to buy and tokens made it look really fiddly. The players seemed to have rule discussions and rearrange stuff quite a bit.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 15:11
|
|
|
Countblanc posted:It's just... it just feels really boring. Maybe if I put a lot more time into it I'd see into the matrix or whatever and have a great time but nothing about it excites me and every time I bring it with me somewhere I secretly hope someone offers me $25 cash for it or something. Basically, yep. Interested to hear there's an expansion coming, though I don't know what it could do to the base play to make it better - something more cut-throat? Further-reaching time implications, ala Cities in 7 Wonders?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 15:22
|
|
|
House Louse posted:A bunch of my cards have bent in the heat. Is there a way to reverse this, short of piling heavy books on them? Will sleeving help prevent it? It's awesome. You know how people try and claim Trains is better than Dominion because it has a map? FCM is non-random Dominion with a variable map that actually matters. I'm being reductive obviously but it does have deckbuilding roots, there are roughly terminals, villages and buy analogues, but no cantrips. Probably the biggest difference though is that you choose exactly which cards you're going to play each turn out of your deck, so there's zero shuffle luck, but still a huge amount of room for strategic creativity. The rules aren't actually all that complicated, but it's a heavy game nonetheless, with a ton of turn to turn interactivity and fuckery. On another note, for all y'all that missed out on Arkwright the first time around, it's getting an official English release in 2016: http://us12.campaign-archive2.com/?u=1f0153bc276bf5d16b861ea22&id=2217763cac
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 15:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 01:38 |
|
|
House Louse posted:. Is there a way to reverse this, short of piling heavy books on them? You answered your own question. I don't think there's a magical technique to flatten out cards. A heavy rear end bass also works.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 15:26
|
|
