Boardgaming in 2018!

Games
441

I made the less optimal move first, and he made a move which would have been silly if I were playing optimally. Then again, Scotland Yard isn’t exactly an example of the co-op problem.

I think I mostly dispute the idea that one person is more likely to explore the game tree well enough to find the optimal move than four comparable people are. Not to say you can’t play co-op games solitaire to your heart’s content, of course; I just don’t think it’s more optimal from a theoretical perspective than playing with people.

442

Anyone keen on the new Wallace game?

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/278847765/auztralia-board-game-by-martin-wallace

Seems like this is the most important thing in Kickstarters today:

AuZtralia’s box is crammed with a total of over 640 components.

443

It… its a railway , farming, economic game in which you fight a war against Cthulhu?

I like it!

444

Good lord, no, no, no. It was just spot on. I wish I could be that concise about my own biases when I get into conversations like these!

Do you like Aeon’s End? I played around with it a bit and although I really like the mechanics as a deck-builder, I thought the structure of what you were doing didn’t seem very well thought out. Plus, all the battles are pretty much just everyone punching away at a bag of hit points. Some of the monsters seemed better themed than others, but for the most part, it just felt very ramshackle. I kind of threw in the towel after realizing that a giant underground worm monster is only a giant worm because that’s the picture. The thing that damages everyone is called “earthquake” or something, which is what makes it underground. But mechanically, it might as well be a dragon that breathes fire. I hate that. You can’t just put names on things and make me care.

I also didn’t like the sandbox DIY nature of which components to use in any given game. “Hey, just pick some of these. Whatever suits your fancy!” Isn’t that your job, Mr. Game Designer? To tune this stuff? There’s an online randomizer that helps, but I don’t get the sense there’s much tuning in the game. Which is a shame, because I really like the feel of wizards slowly spooling up their power during an epic battle. It’s a really cool way to put the mechanics of deck-building into play.

What’s your take? Have you played it much?

I’m tempted to buy Magic Maze just so I can have it to show people. But then I’d probably have to play it with them. Do not want.

Also, quit talking about Chromehounds. You’re making other multiplayer games look bad!

-Tom

445

I know, right? Firefly could – should! – be so good. Poor pick-up-and-play games. Merchants and Marauders is the same way. Similarly, the Seas of Glory expansion tries to address this, but the sad fact is that fly/fight/trade space games – or float/fight/trade sailing ship games – are about players out and about doing their own thing. I love the stuff you do, but it’s really a bummer that we pay so little attention to each other.

-Tom

446

What are you playing against if you play solitaire? Is it just a time limit like Mage Knight?

-Tom

447

Well, that’s not quite what I’m saying. When you describe it as “exploring the game tree”, you make it sound like it’s a matter of processing power, akin to a chess computer. I’m talking more about familiarity with boardgaming in general, and especially familiarity with a given boardgame. A capacity for strategic thinking is, of course, an important factor, and your description of “exploring a game tree” could come into play here, but that’s not all there is to it.

I mean, come on, think about your group. Think about any given game. Isn’t there someone in your group who you think knows that game best? Who’s most familiar with its components, it’s systems, and their interactions? Isn’t that person basically better at playing the game than the others? Isn’t he or she the one you watch out for when you play? It’s no different with a co-op game.

For instance, I know Eldritch Horror better than anyone in our group. I’ve played it a lot. I’ve pored over the pieces and cards and god abilities and spells and investigators. The few times we’ve played cooperatively, I’ve watched people do things that aren’t a good idea because they don’t have a sense for the stakes, or how aggressive you can or can’t be, or what kind of equipment and challenges and dilemmas are in the decks, or how the game clock is going to accelerate over time, or how well they’re positioned for the kinds of threats and challenges that will emerge. And that’s cool, because people care more about having a sense of agency than whether we win. It’s like playing an RPG.

But if we wanted to win, if we were actually trying to save the world from Cthulhu, we should figure out who knows the game best and let him call the shots. In other words, I should just play it myself and the rest of you can go play Diablo 3 on the PS4 or something.

My feeling is that’s true to a certain degree of any cooperative game. Maybe I’m just extrapolating from the variety of people in my own group. Maybe you guys Harrison Bergeron your best players somehow, and maybe your worst players are really good. But even then, if we’re going to be honest, a system is best beaten by the person who knows it best.

-Tom

448

Oh lordy, yes! Yes, yes, yes! I think it’s described as being part of the Study in Emerald universe, right? That’s my jam. My tabletop jam. My cardboard and meeple jam. My dice and cards and little colored wooden cubes jam. My jam with asymmetry and hidden identities and crazy scoring mechanics in it. My MarWall jam, as I call it. I love to spread me a little MarWall across the table.

Now please stop talking about it until it’s available to be played sometime at the end of this year (fingers crossed). In the meantime, amuse yourselves with this piquant little Wallace diversion:

https://www.amazon.com/Asmodee-HZR01-Hit-Road-Game/dp/B01EZUCJ54/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1520331346&sr=8-1&keywords=hit+z+road+board+game

I accidentally own two copies! Come over and let me show you one of them!

-Tom

449

This is where you lose me, and probably the others on this side of the argument. Depending on the game, the one who knows it best in my group is me or my lawyer buddy; a substantial minority of our co-op wins come in games where people don’t make our preferred moves.

To talk about things in an RPG analogy, in my group Make Strategic Gaming Decision is, say, 12+D20 for a good player for a given game and 6+D20 for an average one. The good player is the right bet in aggregate, but there are still plenty of cases where the average player sees something the good player missed. Sure, there are some gaming groups where the spread is different, but the course of action I quoted runs counter to my observations of the best way for my group to win.

450

we should figure out who knows the game best and let him call the shots

I would think that this is hard to figure out in a Coop. In chess, you play a couple of games against each other and then you have an idea who is the better player… in a Coop game? Who knows who is best at the game? Let’s discuss different strategies and then decide on one … well that’s how we play coop. At one point one player has a good idea, at a different point another player comes up with the best plan…

I would not want a game dictator decide every move… if the dictator goes wrong everybody suffers ;)

451

There is so much about the game I love, too. I usually just play the scenario you can pirate other players and steal their goal tokens. Even then, the amount of PVP is pretty low.

452

Yeah, I could see one player being definitively the only one who should make the plans if they were perfect and always chose the right course of action, but that’s never been something I’ve encountered. For a fallible player there’s still a decent chance someone else will come up with something they don’t and which is better.

453

Yes there is a clock. In a given scenario there are two factions and when one of those factions reaches the top of the faction power track the game is over. If no one has the minimum influence (victory) points everyone loses. Event cards will drive one or the other faction up the track and both faction power markers will gradually go up over time automatically as a certain deck is emptied and recycled over the course of the game.

Short answer, yes there is a time limit and players may be able to throttle it a little bit.

Tom Mc

454

I know this isn’t directed at me, but as the local Aeon’s End pumper I wanted to respond to this!

I thought the rulebook gave the “build-your-own market” as an optional variant. I’ve never played it that way and can’t imagine I would ever want to. I always play by picking a nemesis and then randomizing the characters and the market using this website. Trying to figure out how to win with a random bunch of characters and markets is the best way to play. It forces you to find power combinations between mages and various spells that are less obvious.

I agree the theme on some of the nemeses doesn’t come across well. For me, it works out because most of them change up the game enough for me to forgive that. Like after you’ve played the game a bunch, fighting the nemesis that makes you shuffle your deck really twists how you think about your deck. But I do think the Hollow Crown really fits the bill. It plays unlike any of the other nemeses and fits its theme really well.

455

At this point, I’ve stopped being interested in cooperative games, as I am now much more interested in this Ayn Rand Gaming Group of Superior Man.

456

I just received my copy of Spirit Island … I have a specific and a general question regarding rule books. The specific question is, that Spirit Island makes this suggestion for beginners, to play the game using less cards, rules and whatelse to have an eaasy mode … I do not like it, to play a “light” version of a board game before I am “allowed” to play the real version of that game , Is it really recommended to play the “light” version of Spirit Island??

And the general question is: what do you guys think of playing “light” versions of a game before going to the real stuff? There are other games that did this (can’t remember), but I never know if I would waste my time playing the “light” version first …

457

If it’s group play and not some sort of solo thing, I do this with my group all the time to judge interest in the genre and also how they like the game/theme itself. Some we never left the light versions and others we advanced well beyond. It requires some additional cost for me but I get a good feel and only really have one game I don’t care for much, at this point.

Oh I should mention my group ranges from 3-14, we average about 5 a month, and it’s often not the same five people each time so we play around a lot. Light versions are for others, not me.

458

I almost always skip simplified intro games. I can’t think of a time it’s ever felt like a mistake. I have specific groups I tend to do my first plays with who are more experienced and more forgiving of me having to check the rulebook mid-game. I might set up an intro game later for a less experienced group if they really want to play a game I’m worried might be hard for them to handle. But that’s pretty rare.

I think they’re extremely smart ideas. If you don’t play a lot of board games, teaching and learning the simplified versions in games can significantly decrease the barrier to learning.

459

I don’t have any insight to offer other than to say that I sometimes agonize over similar decisions with games that offer different roles or scenarios with specific recommendations for beginners. Not simplified rules, but easier or simpler challenges/characters/goals/whatever.

Like, almost every game of Dead of Winter I’ve played has had at least one new person, but I sure am tired of the recommended “collect more samples” goal. But do I risk picking one at random and ending up with something really punishing? Should I mix in the expansion factions for Scythe when some players are experienced and some aren’t, but then intervene if a newbie picks the green or purple faction? Should I get more adventurous with my mix of characters in Citadels? Should I throw caution to the wind and toss the Sushi-Go chopsticks into the mix right out of the gate?

I mean, I’m not truly agonizing over Sushi-Go, but I do wonder about it with every game I play.

460

I played the light version first, but not to completion. I often like to do this just to quickly get the game setup and general play/turn structure down before reading the rules more thoroughly and reseting for a full game. But I wouldn’t miss it if it weren’t there. :)

I think it can work in some games as a short variant when you want something quicker. The way Spirit Island did it though, I didn’t really like the prescribed card order - it may work for teaching in multiplayer but it’s too limiting solo.

c.f. Dawn of the Zeds 3rd Ed. which is about the worst offender I have ever encountered. I think there’s something like 6 different games of varying complexity and the rules are a bit of mess because of it. I could appreciate a shorter variant or two but what they did is overkill.