|
PerniciousKnid posted:He already has Ticket to Ride and Small World, but complains that TtR is too slow. They started playing a variant where first to complete three tickets wins. So, the player who draws the shortest routes at the beginning of the game automatically wins? That is an example of bad parenting right there.
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2014 17:00
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 09:17 |
|
|
PerniciousKnid posted:I think he said something about whoever completes tickets worth the most points is the second winner? Maybe the sons are the rule-creators. This just makes it worse. It is now your mission to pick up the slack for your co-workers lack of parenting.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2014 17:05
|
|
|
Somberbrero posted:Honestly I'm kind of sick of Fantasy Flight producing well-designed, infinitely expandable games. I will be too, as soon as they start. 
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2014 21:48
|
|
|
PRADA SLUT posted:Lots of wrong words. Consider the following. There are two different types of randomness in board games: the type that drives strategy (good), and the type that invalidates it (bad). To give examples of these two types, let's take a look at Cyclades. Cyclades has two distinct random elements: a combat die that resolves fights between armies and navies, and a deck of monster cards that give players single-use powers when purchased. Now, it is a common viewpoint among those you criticize that dice generally fall into the category of bad randomization, while cards more often a form of good randomization (when designed properly). In Cyclades, however, I am of the opinion that the opposite is true. The combat die, due to how combat is resolved as well as its low variance (0-3 on a d6, with double 1s and 2s) does not randomly determine winners as much as it heavily incentivizes players not attacking unless they have a 2+ point advantage (at which victory is almost a sure bet), while still allowing the option for a high-risk high-reward Hail Mary attacks. To me, this makes the combat die a good form of randomization, because it drives the players decisions through the game. The monster deck, however, is a random assortment of one-shot powers. Some of the powers are useless if they come out too early, too late, or without certain other cards. Others are so powerful that they can single-handed win the game by overriding the main flow of the game. In fact, nearly every game of Cyclades I've played has been won either by the player who simply had the most cash on hand the turn one of those cards came out (after enough metropolises where on the board for winning to be possible), or the player who simply noticed that they could immediately snatch victory with that card while no one else did. This is bad randomization, because you can't build a working strategy around something that can potentially break any rule in the game, and it can easily determine the winner to be not the person who played the best, but the person who happened to be at the right place at the right time. Now, let's tie this back to Ascension by identifying the two random elements in that game; your deck, and the central market deck. Of these two, the randomness is the individual player's deck is what it shares with Dominion, and this is what I would classify as 'good'. It is good randomization because the entire strategy of both games is driven by trying to manipulate this randomizer into a lean, powerful, and reliable engine. Every decision you make has to be made with that goal in mind, and the chance of your deck sputtering every now and again is what drives you to constantly improve it (and in Dominion's case, the fact that scoring mean deliberately sabotaging your own engine forces you to think carefully as to what Victory cards to purchase and when). Ascension's central market deck, however, is 'bad', just as it is in every other game that uses one. It is bad because it does not drive or direct your strategy, it stifles it. Did you choose a rune heavy strategy only to have the central row be nothing by monsters for several straight turns? Or did you go Power-heavy and end up with a dry spell of monsters, forcing you to waste it on lovely Cultists? Oh, you were looking to trim down your deck with banishers, or go for a Mechana synergy strategy, only to never have a chance because they were all drawn after your turn, but acquired before it got back to you? Sucks to be you, dude! It has nothing to do with 'asymmetrical advantage and disadvantage', it's about having the decisions you make though out the game matter, by allowing them to have a effect on the outcome, instead of having them invalidated, or even prevented, by a glorified RNG. It's about being able to play the game, instead of having the game play you.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2014 07:34
|
|
|
PRADA SLUT posted:That just forces you to play a balanced game. You want to play greedy and throw everything you've got behind one strategy, that's fine, but you risk getting wrecked by something else. If you load up on nothing but power and then a few flops happen where there's nothing to use it on, you can cry about deck RNG conspiring against you, or you can be like "well gently caress, probably should have diversified my deck a bit more the past 5 turns". That's the point of playing tactics is that you don't know what board state you're going to find yourself in, you can either play greedy and go for one strategy only (which will cause you to lose in certain board states), or you can diversify to hedge against other possible board states, at the cost of a less synergistic strategy. Yes, that is the game's strategy; it is also the game's ONLY strategy. And that is the primary problem with Ascension. If a game has a single dominant strategy and a shared randomizer, then once all of the players know what that strategy is and attempts to implement it, then the whims of that randomizer end up deciding the winner, not the players' actions. Ascension is a game with no skill curve, simply a binary state of 'knowing how to win' and 'not knowing how to win'. Mega64 posted:Not disagreeing with this, but it's somewhat mitigated by monsters only being able to be bought in order of the gods that turn, which can force some strategic bidding if people see the game-winning strategy for a person with it. This is what I meant by 'the player who simply had the most cash on hand the turn one of those cards came out' wins the game, because they'll just dump all the cash they have, minus the cost of the monster, to secure the top god. No need for strategic bidding if no one can out bid you and game is about to end (and yes, I know money is hidden, but it's not hard to keep track of whose is flush and who is strapped if you're paying attention to income and spending). Scyther posted:On a side note I find it interesting that by filing off some of the chaff from Ascension, Star Realms more prominently showcases just how awful and broken the random center market is as a mechanic in a deckbuilder, and as a result is even more mind numbing to pay. This. Star Realms is far more random than Ascension because the synergies between card types actually matter, so the dominant strategy (focus on only two colors, or one if possible) is even more obvious, and getting screwed by the market deck hits you even harder. Rutibex posted:It's psychological not mechanical. When you lose at a particularly random game you don't know if you lost because of inferior skill or because of the dice; this lets defeat seem less bitter. There is a reason that children's games like Candyland/snakes&ladders are entirely random. You do realize that your argument works under the assumption that all board gamers have the emotional maturity of children? If this has been true for your experience, then all I have to say is that you have my condolences.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2014 16:01
|
|
|
xopods posted:Sorry if I was unclear, but I was responding specifically to people like Lorini and Paper Kaiju who were casting "need to feel like there's a chance of winning" as equivalent to "need to win" and making assertions about the maturity level of people who feel that way. I was actually just mocking Rubitex for using games literally designed for children to prove his point, but whatevs. I've long since given up on having a rational argument with him. VVVVV: I would love to play board games with you if you weren't on the opposite coast as me 
Paper Kaiju fucked around with this message at 18:27 on Dec 20, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2014 18:21
|
|
|
Nothing you have said addresses the central problem with Catan. In most games, both bad luck and bad choices can result in you losing. In Catan, bad luck and bad decisions can result in you being unable to play the game.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2014 21:30
|
|
|
Somberbrero posted:Adventure Time is a good show though. I can understand a dislike for people who over-identify with it, I guess, but that seems a little petty. I mean, if you're going to play Munchkin, why not play it with a theme that seems like it would be spot-on? But that doesn't answer the question of why are you playing Munchkin? I love Adventure Time, but nature of the show means that it's going to be very hard to make a well-designed game out of it, and even if you did, most of the fanbase isn't going to really care how well-designed it is, just how many references and in-jokes you can squeeze into it.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 25, 2014 20:04
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:Buy - Play as many Treasure cards as you have, you may buy one card. It goes in your discard pile I'm going to risk sounding anal retentive, because it will matter later on, but during the Buy phase you do not HAVE to play as many Treasure cards as you have; you can choose to hold some back. As far as I can recall, there is zero reason to hold any back when playing the base game (since they'll just be discarded anyways during Clean-up), but the expansions do contain some cards (Mint being one of the big ones) where you may have a reason, so knowing that distinction early will save learning players a few headaches down the line.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2015 20:48
|
|
|
I played Dixit for the first time tonight. I know it has very high praise here, but I always dismissed it due to my distaste for party games, and my bad experiences with A2A. Holy poo poo, I couldn't have been more wrong. Dixit loving owns, if the store had been in stock I would have grabbed a copy on the spot. Also played a bunch of games of The Great Dalmuti, which is a Garfield game from the 90's. I had played this one before probably 7-8 years ago, and I remembered enjoying it, but for some reason my group back then never picked it up again. Turns out it's still a lot of fun; it seemed to contain just the right mixture of player agency and dealing with the whim of the cards.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2015 03:03
|
|
|
To follow up my previous post where I find hop on board the Dixit train, can someone give me a quick rundown on the various expansions/incarnations? I'm guessing from the descriptions that Quest, Odyssey, Daydreams, and Origins are just more cards to add to the base game, but do any add new rules or modules, and is any one of them just as good as the other? Is Journey a reprint of the base set, or an alternate base set? What is Jinx, and is it any good?
Paper Kaiju fucked around with this message at 16:15 on Jan 13, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2015 16:12
|
|
|
Arnm616 posted:I am also in the Triangle, what shops host good game nights? Most of the stores I have found (Game Theory, Event Horizon) seem to mostly do M:tG or Warhammer but not much board gaming. sonatinas posted:Game Theory has adult board game night on Tuesday. Atomic Empire has theirs on Monday. Gamer's Armory i think is on Wednesday. To expand, from what I remember Gamer's Armory has a small base of board gamers that also meet there on off days, usually Thursdays and Sundays, but not on a regular basis. I used to go there often but the commute has become too much for me (I live in North Durham, getting there in the evening usually means braving I-40 at rush, and gently caress that). So I've been trying hit Atomic on Mondays more often, since it's only 15 minutes away. Any chance of a Triangle Goon boardgaming meetup?  enigmahfc posted:I live in Louisville, KY and it sort of amazes me how many gaming/comic shops there are around here. Off the top of my head I can name 5 gaming shops nearby (and one of them is CardHaus's store front, Empire Comics). There are also two pretty good sizes game meetup groups, although one of them is a bit....the worst part of nerd stereotypes. I'm not naming the group. The last meetup a couple weeks ago was pretty drat big, with around 50 people present at any given time, and it went from 10 am to 11 pm, and there's another like it planned in a couple of weeks. Louisville doesn't even feel that big to me anymore, so it's great to have such an active gaming community. I have a lot of family in Louisville, so it's nice to know that, if I ever end up back there, I won't be starved for gaming options.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2015 17:36
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:The thing that minorly bothers me about it is all the poop references. It feels a little juvenile as an adult I work with dogs for a living, and dealing with poop is a major part of the job. If you think it's juvenile for a game about raising pets to repeatedly reference the fact that they poo poo where they please and it's your job to clean it up, I don't know what the hell you were expecting.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2015 19:07
|
|
|
esquilax posted:Not on BGG and not on the boardgame reddit - star realms is actually popular with other game spergs, just not the ones in this thread. It's kind of weird. Here's a mental exercise for you: Can you explain to me what makes Star Realms a good deckbuilder, or even a good game? Because other than listing its differences from Dominion,, you're only cases for it has been an argumentum ad populum, and saying that is a better filler game, which means nothing because it is not competing with Dominion in that field, but against a huge variety of other (and arguably better) filler games.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2015 19:55
|
|
|
Prairie Bus posted:It's an extra, easily forgotten rule. I think the fact that we are here discussing that very rule, as well as the fact that I know the rule despite never having played the game, demonstrates the fact that it is NOT easily forgotten. The entire point of the fluff (or 'lack of fluff', wink nudge) is to make it easier for you to remember a rule that keeps the market flowing.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2015 16:30
|
|
|
Poison Mushroom posted:So, have we decided what the definitive shark-jumping point for SU&SD was? The second sci-fi special was pretty bad, but personally, I feel like the quality began to wane right around the time they started putting The Opener in the mix, too. Based purely on my observations from this thread, it was the A Few Acres of Snow debacle, where Quinns outright stated that, not only was it perfectly acceptable for one side in an asymmetrical 2p game to have perfect access to a literally unbeatable strategy, but that anyone who complained about it was somehow anti-fun because 'you would need a printed spreadsheet/flowchart to execute it,' despite the fact that multiple players stumbled upon it in their first game simply because they understood how deckbuilding worked. As far as the Opener goes, I have to commend it for giving me the idea to add chocolate and coffee in chili recipes. Unfortunately, this was also the episode where he raved about 'Werewolf' by saying that being eliminated early on and having to sit out for the next 30-45 minutes was still 'fun', because you could still watch and enjoy all the fun the players still in the game were having.  VVV Edit: To clarify, AFAoS is what I observed to be the point where Paul and Quinns stopped being Board Game Thread darlings and goons started questioning their perspective on how they judged games (And Quinns' response was another/first example of him doubling down versus fan criticism). Paper Kaiju fucked around with this message at 15:29 on Jan 24, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2015 15:06
|
|
|
Countblanc posted:The first designer game I owned (I had played Catan several years earlier a few times) was the WoW board game. Apparently there were two of them, mine was a giant FFG thing that took several hours and involved lots and lots of dice rolling. I don't remember exactly how I made the move past that, but I do remember my group completely ignoring the PvP rules because it was such a huge setback if you got killed (and was heavily luck-based), so in retrospect us moving on to co-ops and euros is hardly surprising. I'd post my origin story, but it seems you already did.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2015 18:19
|
|
|
The End posted:Your enjoyment of Firefly: the Board Game is directly proportional to how much it bothers you that there isn't more Firefly. Joss Whedon fanboys and people who use Firefly references in everyday speech will obviously adore it. Normal people will see it as totally meh. Which it is. Not really. I'm a Firefly fanboy, but I'm not going anywhere near the Firefly board game because I still have standards.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2015 04:24
|
|
|
ThisIsNoZaku posted:I remember listening to an RPG podcast a billion years ago and the creators were involved in some kind of Living Campaign deal for the Firefly RPG. One time they or a guest talked about how if you were a fan of the show, you should buy one copy of the series to watch, a second copy as a backup/to show support, then at least one more copy to loan out to people to spread interest. Ok, by 'Firefly fanboy', what I really mean is that I watched the show when it first aired, bought ONE copy of the DVD set, saw Serenity in theaters, and bought a copy of the Serenity RPG (which I later sold because it was kinda poo poo). I don't own a single piece of merch, have never referred to myself as a 'browncoat', and don't give a poo poo about spreading interest because, lets face it, it's loving over. I guess that makes me not a true fan by many fans' standards, but gently caress 'em; they're the reason lovely games keep getting pushed out.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2015 12:29
|
|
|
Recaffeinated posted:I don't know how other folks feel about it, but I really like Seven Wonders with 3 people. The card distribution is perfect, and since everyone is next to each other it gets pretty cutthroat. Seems more strategic than playing with a lot of people. Agreed. Although to be honest I think most 2 to X player games that aren't specifically designed for 4 (CitOW, Dungeon Lords, Space Alert) are best with three. Paper Kaiju fucked around with this message at 02:02 on Feb 9, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2015 02:00
|
|
|
Rutibex posted:Yeah I guess I can understand the psychology behind it, but to me personally I find paying real money for anything digital is just alien. It doesn't cost anything to send me a copy of whatever digital content they have or flip some switch on their server to make my character shiny, so why am I paying? It feels more like extortion than actually buying something. Because both the server and the person flipping the switch cost money. As does the programmer who spent many hours of their life punching out the code to make those characters shiny (not to mention coding the goddamn game itself), and they likely spent years of their life learning how to code so that they could get paid to do that. Oh, and the software and hardware to do all that? All of that is 'material that cost actual money'. And without revenue, none of those things exist. So please drop the narrative that video game companies are all somehow guilty of racketeering (yeah, some certainly are greedy fuckers, just like in every other industry, including the 'hand-made crafts' trade).
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2015 16:08
|
|
|
Rutibex posted:I could argue this for pages and pages and get a lot more philosophical on this issue. I won't because this is the board game thread and not D&D. I have the feeling we would not see eye to eye. Board game designs are intellectual property, and very rarely is the designer also the person physically manufacturing copies of the game. Are you seriously suggesting that it is immoral for board game designers to make money of their work?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2015 18:00
|
|
|
Edit: Contents of post deleted becauseLord Frisk posted:Can we not? I get where everyone's coming from, but still, can we not? You are right, Rubitex is going to continue to be Rubitex. Paper Kaiju fucked around with this message at 18:28 on Feb 13, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2015 18:26
|
|
|
Sloober posted:Mansions of Madness? Be aware it is peak FFG. I thought peak FFG was Android?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2015 15:47
|
|
|
Texmo posted:I find it's a distinction between combat being risk-based rather than decision-based, as if it lacks an element of uncertainty, I find it entirely unexciting. This is a completely false distinction. Both types of games are asking you to do the exact thing: look at a series of options and choice the optimal one. In the case of the 'gamble', you're still going to be calculating and selecting the best option based on probability and risk vs. reward assessments. The only distinction between the two is that the gamble presents you with a chance of the optimal choice failing, and the sub-optimal choices succeeding. Now if you require the possibility of your decisions having no impact on your success or failure in order for you to have fun, then that's alright; it just means that Mage Knight is probably not the game for you. But the good news is that there is no shortage of roll-dice-to-win games on the market! Also if a game where the randomization happened pre-decision presents you with a single 'obvious good option', that's a good example of bad game design (a prime example of which are market row deckbuilders like Ascension). In other news, my yearly CSI order arrived...  I'm so freaking excited about games I'll never get to play because my primary game meetup is full of Feld-loving Vlaada-haters. If I can get just one person to learn and play Tash-Kalar with me, I'll be happy, though.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2015 15:26
|
|
|
Dr. VooDoo posted:How much wording is printed on the actual components of Dungeon Lords? I have an option of buying the German wooden box edition but it's not worth it if I have to make note sheets of all the pieces. I am hoping some American wooden box backers will start listing theirs for sale soon Lord Frisk posted:Like no words. I'm not sitting in front of my copy, and I only have the regular edition, but I don't remember anything but symbols. Everything on the boards and on chits has symbols, but the event, combat and trap cards are all really text heavy, and would be unusable without a translation.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2015 17:56
|
|
|
Texmo posted:The element of Uncertainty in decisions was, in fact, the exact distinction which I was pointing out, and is also the 'only distinction' which you pointed out, so I don't understand how you can call it false. Even with uncertain outcomes, there is still a Correct choice; it is the choice that offers the greatest probability of success. And yes, this is even true when chooising between high risk/high reward and low risk/low reward; If this is untrue, that means you have a game where making a logical choice offers no greater odds than choosing at random, at which point you aren't even playing an actual game. Let's say you have to choose between three options: A, B and C. After thinking it over you determine that A has a 25% chance of success, B has a 50% chance of success, and C has a 75% chance of success. The Correct decision is obviously C, and the important thing to remember is that this is true even if the choosing C results in failure. If the randomizer was a simple over/under die roll, and C fails, then A and B would have failed as well. But let's imagine the randomizer was a deck of cards, where the cards simply say A, B or C, and you're betting on what the next draw will be (and let's assume that, somehow, the probabilities remain the same). If you choose C, and the next draw is A, this does not mean that A was the Correct choice. You made the rational, optimal choice, but the randomizer gave you a loss anyways. And if for some reason you chose A, and the next draw ended up being A, this still does not mean you made the correct choice. It just means you choose poorly, but randomizer gave you the win anyways. Rationally, bad decisions are bad decisions regardless of the outcome. Jaywalking through heavy 70mph traffic on the interstate is a bad decision (unless for some reason the only alternatives are even riskier), even if you make it across safely; even if you find a $100 bill lying on the other side, it was still a dumb thing to do. Also, it should be stated that almost no game with 'assured outcomes' have outcomes that are actually assure; the variance comes from the other players, which is often the entire point of those games. They are still not truly solvable, but instead it is the reactions of other players (and your reactions to their reactions) that determine success or failure. Again, if this is untrue, if there is solvable option is a competitive non-random/pre-random game, this is an example of a bad game. And indeed, Mage Knight may be one of those examples (I have not had the opportunity to play it myself yet, nor do I know whether you were playing competitive, co-op, or solo), but even if it is, this does not make it representative of games without post-decision randomness. Edit: Reworded my card game metaphor once I realized my probabilities added up to 150% Edit2: Hyperbole redacted rchandra posted:In that sort of situation in Mage Knight it's usually still interesting since you may not be able to block, or dealing with the dragon woundlessly may just use too many of your cards and you need them to attack the city soon after. So do you take the wounds, wound your units (which ones?), use more cards/skills, or even just block and not attack, sneaking by? That's quite a few interesting options on a combat that has no uncertainty itself. This is interesting; by your assessment, it seems that in Mage Knight, it is not that fighting the dragon is a solvable problem, but that it is the choice of whether to fight the dragon now, later, or even at all that is relevant decision in the later game. This makes me want to play it even more now. Maybe I should just bite the bullet and pick up a copy so I can play it solo. Paper Kaiju fucked around with this message at 04:07 on Feb 28, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2015 03:14
|
|
|
fozzy fosbourne posted:Practically speaking, post-decision randomness is going to lead to x different game states after the decision as opposed to a single state. For example, if you do 1 discrete point of damage, there is one possible state after that decision. If you do 2 damage 25% of the time, 1 damage 50% of the time, and 0 damage 25% of the time, you still have an expected value of 1 damage, and so this is probably still just as good a decision as you mention, but now there are 3 possible game states after you make your decision. This adds more nodes to the potential game states that one would need to solve and makes that tree a whole lot bigger and less likely to fit in a human's head. This is all true, and I was not making that argument that post-decision randomness=bad (I do believe that this is often the case, but whether that is inherently true or simply a symptom or facilitator of bad game design is an entire different argument, one that has gone on often in this thread). I was making a counter-argument to the idea that games need post-decision randomness to make them unsolvable (while the lack thereof makes a game solvable), because it can still potentially lead to scenarios where there is one clear, optimal choice, which I believe is functionally identical to being solvable. Edit: I concede that I likely overexaggerated when I said 'Nearly any game with post-decision randomness is still just as solvable as one without'. Addendum: Lottery of Babylon posted:I think Cyclades is a good example of how post-decision dice can be used well. Between the extremely low variance of the combat dice (0-1-1-2-2-3) and each side only being able to lose one unit per roll, even a two-unit advantage is enough to all but guarantee a win. You commit more troops to mitigate your risk of losing some units in the process of winning the island, not to mitigate your risk of getting randomly blown out. I completely agree with this, and the only reason I ended up not liking Cyclades after roughly a dozen plays is that I Paper Kaiju fucked around with this message at 04:11 on Feb 28, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2015 03:49
|
|
|
ashez2ashes posted:Wow, Spell Wars looks like a pretty lovely game. Tabletop is usually better at tricking me while I'm watching the episode. The art is still amusing though. Are you referring to EPIC SPELL WARS OF THE BATTLE WIZARDS: DUEL AT MT. SKULLZFYRE? Because you have to say the whole thing, accompanied by a bitching guitar shred. And yes, it's pretty poo poo. The one time I played it, I beat the person who was teaching me mostly by spamming Wild Magic (which only lets you play the top card of the deck at your opponent without seeing it first; an ability that is literally useless since you would have drawn that card anyways if you hadn't drawn the Wild Magic). The entire time my opponent kept complaining about his lack of good draws (apparently he kept getting hands full of Deliveries with no Sources or Qualities), and the lack of any discard/redraw mechanic. When it was done, I politely thanked him for showing it to me and got up, and he said 'No wait, we're supposed to play in a series of games to determine the real winner." 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2015 00:47
|
|
|
Indolent Bastard posted:It would have gone better if they knew the rules. That isn't how wild magic works. I was intentionally reducing it for the sake of not having to look up the exact wording on the card just for the sake of a three sentence negative review on an internet forum. We played it as it was written on the card. My point is that EPSOFASDFGHJKL!@#$ should never be played by any number of people, and if I have three good friends to play with, I have a LOT of good games that work best with exactly four people who already know how to play (like nearly every game Vlaada has made). Paper Kaiju fucked around with this message at 01:17 on Mar 6, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2015 01:11
|
|
|
Edit: Semi-beaten by CountblancMega64 posted:Alternately, play games where you can use bad luck to your advantage. My friend who claims to have bad luck with dice (though I definitely think he's exaggerating on that front) wiped the floor with us in his first game of Quantum since he kept rolling low in combat, where lower number wins. Of course, he had solid strategy and bought the "you may reroll an attack die" card early on, so there's a lot more than some lucky rolls. Even if we work under the assumption that a person can inherently have Good or Bad Luck, rolling low in a game where rolling lower is good is an example of Good Luck, not Bad. If you can somehow use Bad Luck to your advantage, it ceases to be Bad Luck. Honestly, I think that a person who inherently rolls low in dice games (which would more likely be due to badly made dice) is even more implausible that a person who inherently rolls poorly (since said person can hit the bell curve perfectly in values and still skew poorly in results if the parameters for successful rolls keep changing).
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2015 01:33
|
|
|
Dr. Video Games 0069 posted:I played Yggdrasil (Ghost Stories, basically) with a guy who claimed to have terrible luck. He chose the character who can reroll dice in an effort to mitigate that bad luck. He didn't fail every roll, though he failed a disproportionately high amount. However, every single time he rerolled, he got the exact same result the second time. This is why giving players the option of rerolls at the exclusion of other perks is bad design; you're essentially making players pay for an ability that may never work, often while other players are getting abilities without that risk. Even if the rerolls don't come with an opportunity cost, you're just putting a Band-Aid on a bullet wound. JoshTheStampede posted:I used to get irritated at people who would start a D&D session by rolling a bunch of dice to see which ones were "lucky" that game. I tried to explain to them that either what they were doing didn't work, in which case it was stupid, or it DID work, in which case THEY WERE CHEATING. I guess my point was in highlighting the absurdity of using that as a rational, by taking it to it's logical conclusion? I mean I'm not really disagreeing with you, here.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2015 01:50
|
|
|
sticklefifer posted:For me personally, I just play Big Money strategy in Dominion, amass property, and rarely touch any other cards if I can help it. Making the really complex turns for an end result I could do a much easier way kind of bores me, honestly. I understand it, I recognize it's a well structured game, I'm just not a fan in general of the pacing or theme and it's one of those games where the longer the game is, the less I care if I win. Yet I realize on big game nights at friends' places I'm probably going to have to play it anyway several more times in my life, which is why I'm always on the lookout for better games that can be played with ~10 people, like the Coup expansion. Literally the entire point of the game is to build a deck that gives a better end result than Big Money. If you're not even attempting to do that, then you're not actually playing the goddamn game; you're just pissing around waiting for it to end. And I, too, find games that I won't bother to put in the effort to play kinda boring. Also, just how many people at once have you been playing Dominion with if "~10 people" is even in the same paragraph?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2015 20:49
|
|
|
Poison Mushroom posted:I still stand by the idea that Epic Spell War is a great game as long as you stop playing when you get bored, rather than when the game is "over". If the point where you become bored with the game comes before the point when the game ends, that's a good sign that it is a bad game.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2015 15:19
|
|
|
fozzy fosbourne posted:I'm pretty hyped for this although with some reservations due to Uchronia's reception (I never played it) It's a shame because I really liked Uchronia's overall game design, but hated its physical design choices (not sure how much of it was the fault of Chudyk or Iello), like Great Work cards that were badly printed and sized to be unsleevable, and the Order deck being a huge stack of tiny cards making it thrice as difficult to shuffle. At that MSRP, though, I'll like give Mottainai my backing.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2015 14:51
|
|
|
fozzy fosbourne posted:Any of you ludologists play Concordia? How about that Mac Gerdt in general? How does that stack up with the other popular euros? I've play Concordia twice, and liked it a lot. It's pretty popular in my area, and one of the guys I often play with considers it his top game of 2014 (it was technically released in 2013, but he didn't get to try it until 14, so...). The only other Mac Gerdt game I've played is Navegador, which I also enjoyed, and I'm sad that it's out of print. I hoped that the success of Concordia gives his future projects more attention, because he's one of my favorite designers based on those two games alone.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2015 02:29
|
|
|
Lorini posted:Funny story about RoboRally. Lorini posted:So early Magic: Lorini posted:Trying to play Las Vegas with my 83 year old dad: Lorini, you continue to be the most interesting poster in this thread, and I thank you.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2015 02:51
|
|
|
Warhammer: Invasion had my favorite resource source that I've seen in a CCG/LCG. Imagine M:TG where, instead of having lands, you started the game generating 3 mana a turn (no colors), you could play creatures to a specific zone (called the 'Kingdom') where their Power added to you mana each turn (and that the Power of creatures generally ranged from 1-3, with 4 or 5 being rare and costly), but those creatures can not attack your opponent from this zone (it can still defend if that zone is attacked, though). And for the purposes of this analogy, imagine Artifacts usually having a Power of 1 or 2 that could contribute to this, but not for combat. Also, there's another zone (called the 'Quest') where the Power of cards played there gives you additional draws every turn. And a final zone (the 'Battlefield') where you play the creatures that are going to be doing the actual attacking. Now you have an actual economy to manage; if your Kingdom outpaces your Quest, you end up with lots of resources to spend with not enough cards to spend them on. And if the reverse happens, you have a hand full of cards that you don't have to resources to play. Spend too much time working on both, and you'll be overrun by creatures from your opponent's Battlefield; but if you rush out your Battlefield too soon without working on the other two, and you'll be out-economied. Other interesting elements were 'Loyalty' costs; instead of different colors of resources, a faction's more powerful cards required you to have a certain amount of cards from that faction already out in play. And you once per turn you could put down any card from your hand face-down into a zone to give it an additional hit point (each zone starts with 8 HP, destroying two opposing zones wins you the game), giving you something to do with copies of high-cost cards that you draw too early in the game. The game itself had some balance issues between factions, and a lot of potential for decks that were just unfun to play against, but I've never seen a card game of that format with a resource system that offered the same amount of meaningful decisions, and I'd love to see it used again (I don't know if FFG has used in any of their later LCGs; the only other one I've really played is Netrunner).
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2015 15:47
|
|
|
Dirk the Average posted:Played a few games of Eminent Domain yesterday, and had a lot of fun, but the game feels too short at higher player counts. Any suggestions for extending the gameplay? Would it be a bad idea to set a fixed # of turns per player and go from there? Define higher player counts (4? 5?), and do your games end more often with depleted stacks or influence? If you're playing at 4 players and ending from stacks, you can always add the 5th player cards from the expansion to prolong the game. The stacks get depleted faster the more players are doing the same thing, so are players diversifying enough?
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2015 17:06
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 09:17 |
|
|
rchandra posted:Yes, I felt 2p Carcassonne resembled Tash-Kalar more. Playing "nice" is not taking a handicap, but mutually playing differently. If it means anything, Loyang is my favorite Rosenburg game, and I don't know why it isn't brought up more.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2015 03:07
|
|