|
The Eyes Have It posted:We have one occasional player who tends to reliably win first games for what I think is a fairly simple reason. This sounds like my approach to new games. New games are big and have a lot to wrap my head around, and I find it helpful and grounding to pick something and go "okay, this will be my focus, I have this thing that gives points for every pumpkin-donkey pair so I'm going to try to build around getting lots of pumpkin-donkey pairs" or whatever. I still need to learn and interact with all the game's other systems in order to actually do whatever I'm trying to do, but it helps contextualize all that other stuff? And then next time we play, I won't be going for pumpkin-donkey pairs.
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2023 21:30
|
|
the game as a whole. It's an effective approach but not a very sustainable one.
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 10:33 |
|
|
The constitution says everyone has a right to have someone defend their honor in the something awful boardgames thread, so if you think about it, my explanation of why brock turner did nothing wrong is a civic duty and a public service.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2023 05:55
|
|
|
Azran posted:Wasn't there a list of good digital board game adaptations on Steam or am I misremembering? I only have Brass, TtA, Galaxy Trucker and uhhhh Istanbul I guess. The One Deck Dungeon digital game is fantastic. The Spirit Island app is very good too, though the Jagged Earth expansion hasn't been released yet. Gloomhaven turned out pretty good too, though it's more computer-taxing than you'd expect of a board game adaptation because of all the 3D graphics stuff.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2023 21:31
|
|
|
Azran posted:Oh you're right, I've got these and Aeon's End as well Their Aeon's End app is great too! I wish it had been more financially successful, since there's such a massive amount of content from the board game that never got brought over.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2023 06:31
|
|
yeah they're great, agreed!
|
Serotoning posted:On another note, let me get this off my chest: you don't need to throw expansions in on the first goddamn play. You think you need to because you buy too many games that you don't play enough and thus feel pressured with every play to throw all the crap you have for it in. Expansions are for breathing new life into a game you are already familiar with and have played nearly to death. Including them in the first play just obfuscates the base game for players, making it harder to learn, and totally tarnishes the marginal utility of an "expansion", which is greatest when you have the base game practically solved. Depends on the game and exactly what the expansion does. I'd point to Eldritch Horror as an example of a game where using the expansions from the outset is a good idea. Extra cards to pad out the decks mean you won't see the same encounter twice within your first play, and the addition of Focus tokens mean you don't get awkward moments where you just go "uh, there aren't any actions I can take, I guess I just skip my turn?" But it also doesn't add extra complexity or make the game harder to teach, since if you're using a base game old one and no preludes, none of the fiddly extra stuff exists. (Yes I know someone is going to say that your real mistake is playing Eldritch Horror in the first place.)
|
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2024 05:59
|
|
|
Jedit posted:You won't anyway, unless you really drag it out somehow or spend the whole game in one region. The problem with core-only EH is that you see the same cards every game, so it's not very replayable. The first expansion fixed that by adding enough extra location encounters that you shouldn't cycle the whole deck in a game and enough variations for the base GOOs that facing one of them didn't always feel the same. Late in our first game, we got some kind of encounter where a knight dies and hands you a specific artifact sword to take up his quest. We couldn't gain the sword because one of the players already had it from earlier in the game where that same knight had already died and given away that same sword. I think that was a research encounter? The base game only has 8 of those cards per old one, and a lot of mysteries require you to do a lot of them.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2024 16:35
|
|
|
Carillon posted:Maybe! I remember it as a story where a designer gathered a lot of data about balance or factions. But when the data was released along with the conclusions, I think the conclusions were the opposite of what the data showed. Not sure if that tracks your story? Yeah, Vlaada's advice on Robinson Crusoe wasn't based on collected data, it was Vlaada explaining "If you make 40% of the event deck good and 60% bad, and balance the game expecting 2 of the 5 events to be good, then some games you'll get 5 bad events and the game will randomly be an autoloss. The only way to control your game's balance is to make 100% of the event deck bad."
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2024 04:09
|
|
|
The Shame Boy posted:Will never forget the one scenario in 1st edition MoM where you do all the tedious setup and the reward for following the obvoius breadcrumb trail is to fall into a freezer or something and fall onto an eldritch hellscape and lose the game instantly. The first event card warns you not to touch the freezer... but the freezer is positioned so near to the entrance that you naturally open it a turn before the first event card triggers and actually gives you that warning. Luckily it's quick to just reset and play again with a different story objective at that point, since the players have explored so little, but  One of the scenarios in the first box expansion you couldn't even finish setting up because it asked you to use both sides of the same map tile at the same time.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2024 02:14
|
|
|
Tekopo posted:The superior move is threatening to resign in order to win a game. Through the Ages is truly the game of kings. There was controversy in the MtG community recently when someone did this in a tournament. Simplifying the situation: it was a four-player game, player A had a combo that could win the game immediately but needed player B's cards to still be in play to do it. B said "If you try to jus win the game with this, I'll just resign"; B would lose anyhow so resigning wouldn't cost B anything, but A wouldn't be able to immediately defeat C and D because B resigning would remove B's cards from the game and break the combo. Since B didn't want to lose and A didn't want to not get any value out of their combo, they negotiated and agreed that B wouldn't resign as long as A only used the combo to gain some advantage instead of going for the immediate win. People got really mad about doing that in a tournament for prizes but I dunno, I feel like that kind of politicking is kind of what you get when you try to play a four-player free-for-all 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2024 04:13
|
|
|
Remembering a game of The Resistance where one of the traitors was exposed and resigned by putting his Vote No card face-up on the table, flipping everyone off, and walking away from the game. This was a clever strategy that lead to him and his team winning.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2024 16:18
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 10:33 |
|
|
Doctor Spaceman posted:Jagged Earth suggests that while you should randomly choose a Blight Card you should feel free to only use a subset you find fun. If it's early in the game and we get one of those blight cards that gives a ton of blight but basically makes everyone destroy a presence every turn, we just set it aside and draw a different one.
|
|
#
¿
May 21, 2024 23:17
|
|