Board Game General /bgg/

>poker is well designed game
>Any game that uses dice is shit

And what do you consider to be the crucial difference between shuffling a deck of cards and rolling a die? They're both means of generating random values.

have a seven hour flight with two lads, What board game would be good to play on the plane?

- Kickstarter is shit.

If you literally do just that - shuffle a deck to pull a numbered card, and shuffled it all over again, then yes, there's no difference.
I cant think of a single game that does it though.

Just read a book, my man.

>- Randomized set-up is bad design. Variety cannot replace depth.
False. Without randomized setup you end up with books of 'openings' and 'parties' to memorize, and that just completely kills the game. See: chess.

>- Any game that uses dice is shit. Dice is not a mechanic, its a random number generator, if the game uses it the designer gave up on work
Dice are fine as a RNG mechanic. Some might quibble with the fact that uniform distributions are boring, but you can combine several dice and get something approaching normal.

>- A litmus test for a game with imperfect information is to have one of the players play openly. Such player must have nearly impossible odds of winning, otherwise the game is badly designed (i.e. poker is a well designed game because if you play it with your cards open you have almost no chance of winning ever)
There are games where the imperfect information is shared between all players. (Most eurogames, in fact.)

>- If a game cannot be taught within 30 minutes, it's shit.
There's a huge difference between learning the rules and learning to play well. The first is pointless if you don't care for the second.

Yay, another way to buy overpriced kiddie toys and pretend like I'm buying sophisticated adult boardgames! It's been like, a whole week since we had the last opportunity to do this!

Pocket billiards.

I've heard good things about the way they integrate narration/rp in what otherwise looks like a wargame.

Looks interesting, but the theme doesnt really grab me and I'm already backing two games right now...

Seconding Le Havre at three people.

Carcassonne

You'd want something that doesn't take up a lot of room. Hive could be good but it only plays two. But I'd say reading a book, watching a movie, or sleeping is the best thing to do

Bargain Quest seems like a fun game, waiting on the delivery.

Rex uses it for one minor element in place of a d6.

Just want to point out you're wrong. Well not wrong but you're missing WHY the muddy red is an issue, it's not the color is the tone. You can't just not use muddy red and call it a day-what you perceive as bright red and normal green (not forest) preschool colors can be an issue just as much and none of that addresses low or no color across the spectrum or other types of color blindness. Which is a problem because if special snow flake millennial designers try to account for color blindness without understanding the actual issues but just spouting some shit about "it's the muddy colors" that's no better than not addressing it at all. It's not hard, but it does take actual understanding not internet meme knowledge.

Now let's talk about how I just realized none of my games are in left-hand boxes, because suddenly that's really an issue for me.

Alahabra
San Juan
Scythe
Anachrony
The Village
Splendour
Seafall

1. wrong opinions don't need to be refuted
2. opinion, again wrong but you're allowed to be stupid
3. that's just stupid on top of just using (again) arbitrary opinions
3a. Poker is not a designed game you fucking mongoloid
4. Your opinions (and that's all they are except 3a where you're just wrong) are also shit.

Feeding the troll aside I spent a long time teaching castle dice properly (almost an hour) and did well because despite the players begging me to start already I got beat down in a tie for 2nd (eg 3rd) and in my opinion that makes a great game because experience doesn't trump all comers.

Here's where you're autistic:
> it's great if you want to design a game to those criteria*
> it's stupid to judge other games to those criteria

*let us know how that goes smart lad

Loopin Louie of course

It's like you hate fun. Do you only ever play Power Grid.

>Seafall

In spite of all the potential, this game is just plain flawed to the point where playing with the out of the box rules isn't worth it. I'd feel bad recommending this to others knowing that one strategy is nigh well unbeatable. Which truly sucks in a long campaign game.

>stop the shitposting
nigga, do you even know where you are?

>Seriously suggesting Scythe to anyone
The game is pure, unfiltered shit that runs entirely on aesthetics, but gameplay wise it's just a complete clusterfuck of unrelated elements and isolated gameplay. It's almost as if everyone played singleplayer in a vaccum.

Tell me about power grid. I avoided it because the game controlling rules lawyer of our group was not willing to play anything else one evening (sat for fifteen minutes with it set up until the last few people didn't have a choice of where to sit LOL).

What exactly did I miss?

Like machi koro and bright lights where you just camp one die until $30 buy airport and watch the big money roll in? Boring but effective.

Except Machi Koro doesn't require multiple gaming sessions to complete...

>nigga, do you even know where you are?

Yeah, not /b/ and not /pol/. Shit-posting can stay where it belongs.

> - Randomized set-up is bad design. Variety cannot replace depth.
Implying both can't happened at the same time.
> Any game that uses dice is shit. Dice is not a mechanic, its a random number generator, if the game uses it the designer gave up on work
There's a huge misconception that dices are anti-strategy. That is completely untrue. Part of making a strategy is to predict all the possible outcomes. When playing a game that has dices, for instance, you must take in consideration all the possible outcomes of it and make your actions considering the odds you got. Even poker does this - players need to know what are the chances of the opponent having better cards than they have, based on the information they know.
> A litmus test for a game with imperfect information is to have one of the players play openly. Such player must have nearly impossible odds of winning
I get what you mean, but not necessarily. For instance, in a high complex card game with no "instant" cards (only playing cards on your turn), your opponent knowing what cards you have might not affect that much, because he might not know what you are planning to do.
> If a game cannot be taught within 30 minutes, it's shit.
Sort of agree with that one.

It's almost like there's a place made exactly for you, full of moderators and people who never shitpost and only fellate each other in a kumbaya circlejerk. Starts with an 'r', ends with a 'dit'. Why are you still here?

you forgot /a/, /v/, /r9k/, /s4s/, /mu/, Veeky Forums, /qa/, /vip/ and Veeky Forums.

>> If a game cannot be taught within 30 minutes, it's shit.
Clearly you're not playing games where 30 minutes is only 10% of the play time.
Just picked up this beaut, 1862.

Why are hex-based games always so fucking ugly? There's something so profoundly repulsive and unnatural about this beehive looking shit

I ain't gonna lie its on the uglier end of 18xx, with pic related being the upper end.
But imagine if all those tiny roads on your picture were important, vital pieces of information that need to be clear at a glance from across the table.

Well, I'm not saying a game that cannot be taught within 30 minutes is necessarily shit, but I agreed with user because, as a game designer, I believe there's rarely any valid reason for making a game so complex it takes over half a fucking hour to explain the rules. If that is the case, something happened: either the rules are unnecessarily complex, the manual is shit or the game doesn't have an intuitive design. But in other words, if it takes more than 30 minutes to teach the game, the designer(s) fucked up.

> Clearly you're not playing games where 30 minutes is only 10% of the play time.
One of my games lasts around 5 hours (on the reduced duration mode), and yet it can be taught/explained in 10 minutes easily. What makes games take too long to explain is complexity. What you need for a game to be interesting (even if it is long) is not complexity, but depth. Only a good design can achieve the maximum amount of depth with the minimum amount of complexity.

Castles of burgundy is one of the best board games you fag. It's about how luck is involved in the game that matters. Eng happens and then the player makes a decision is fine. Player makes a decision and then a random thing happens is what suck.

What? Takenoko has pretty hexes.

>any thoughts ?
I think eating half a bag of low sodium Fritos yesterday is what is giving me the shits.

I can relate to that. I'm going to delete my post as it is completely worthless.

Your post opened my eyes. Thanks, user.

You should have used the voucher on something else. Did they not have any better games on their website?

So does anyone know some good initial rules for tabletop Nomic?

>one of my games takes 5 hours can be taught in 10 minutes
so its candyland? or monopoly? or some bullshit game that should take an hour tops but you set the vp goal so high that players are forced into what you, as a bullshit designer, consider an "epic" experience?

If you can fully explain the game in 10 then the systems youve implemented are not interacting in meaningful enough ways to warrant a 5 hour shitshow

Not them but have you ever played Diplomacy? You can explain that shit in 5 minutes yet it takes hours to play

I would love to see you explain the intricacies of how the movement part of diplomacy works plus the rest of the rules in 5 minutes

>Diplomacy
>intricacy
What the fuck

go ahead and try to explain in 5 minutes how to resolve every possible outcome in the movement phase. have fun, dipshit.

> If you can fully explain the game in 10 then the systems youve implemented are not interacting in meaningful enough ways to warrant a 5 hour shitshow
You completely missed the point, and instead went Ad hominem on me (in this case, attacking me/my game instead of the actual argument).

My point is that you can have very deep games with very low complexity. Chess, for instance, is a very simple game, rule-wise (all you need to know is how each of the 6 pieces move, a few additional rules and that is it), but have a lot of depth. That is what I'm talking about. Most games like this (low complexity, high depth) are the sort of game that is easy to learn but hard to master. I never played 's example but I'm pretty there are plenty board games out there that fit this category.

> so its candyland? or monopoly? or some bullshit game that should take an hour tops but you set the vp goal so high that players are forced into what you, as a bullshit designer, consider an "epic" experience?
Its a strategy game, with a lot of planning, politics, backstabbing and mind games. Its not the best game ever but its quite fun for those players who like strategy games (I enjoy playing it a lot). I created a thread about it the other day here on Veeky Forums, a lot of people were interested on it.

You used specific numbers in your example and are now unable to back them up. Sorry you don't think before you make statements.

Well, its been 5 minutes and you've failed. Thanks for proving me right.

What is these to explain? Simple arithmetic? You look at contested region and see who has more support (required an amazing skill of counting up to 3 or 4), then you check if any of the supports are contested and if yes subtract their support number, thats it.

What numbers? 10 minute explanation for 5 hour gameplay? How I'm supposed to back them up? Make a video of myself teaching the rules? Find a "witness" who had played the game?

I'm telling you, the rules are easy to explain but its a long-duration game.

>how am i supposed to back them up?
jesus christ man, youre now admitting that you threw out bullshit numbers for no reason. it really was my fault for assuming some anonymous dickhead knew what he was talking about

it took you more than five minutes to come up with that and it is nowhere near enough to have taught someone how to play. thanks for playing, heres your (You)

Is this what autism looks like?

> youre now admitting that you threw out bullshit numbers for no reason
what? how the fuck am i supposed to prove to you how long my game takes? its a fucking board game

also, why the hell would you doubt how long it takes to teach the rules / the duration of a game you never played before?

So, I'm trying to play Gloomhaven with some friends on TTS, but I can't find images of the City Events, Road Events or the Character goals

Anyone know where I can find these, or alternatively, does anyone own the game and would be willing to take pictures of the cards so I can just use a RNG program to randomly select them when I need to?

>I play games with everything giving points

getting points for anything you do makes you feel like a good boy :D

We should start calling them Oprah games.

"You get a point, -you- get a point, those guys there get two points, EVERYONE ELSE GETS A POINT!"

Are you really retarded? The premise was that if a game can be taught in each unit has a strength of one and if multiple units try entering the same area with equal strengths, they bounce (return to where they came from). This is where supporting is used
>if a unit is overpowered, it is dislodged and must either retreat or be destroyed

And that's pretty much it. With that there you've taught the game and can start playing. What you're shitting about is explaining the intricacies of every single outcome before you start which
1. Is one of the stupidest and worst ways to teach everything that could ever happen at once unless you're playing tic tac toe
2. Not the premise I was addressing.

What's the game? Is that thread still up?

No game, user is making blanket statements upthread.

Campaign for North Africa

It’s kinda like math class

He's on a flight, not a slowboat to Alpha Centauri.

Diplomacy is not a good game.

>We should start calling them Oprah games.
They're already called 'point salad games', no need for a new name.

What's wrong with point salad though? As long as it's not utterly broken in other ways (stone age), what's the problem?

>What's wrong with point salad though?
The white man invented salads.

...

>What's wrong with point salad though?
Nothing at all. Some people just dislike these kinds of games (cause they feel directionless), but they're not necessarily bad.

Give me one reason why I would play Diplomacy instead of (hold on, lemme pick two modern games with a map randomly) Broom Service or Concordia?

And if you reply with 'lol but but backstabbing, dude', I will slap you.

You won't have the sublime pleasure of getting to see the face a man makes as you thrust the knife deep into the skin and flesh of their back, the combination of all those emotions struggling to express themselves all at the same time unto one face, in those other two games.

My friend, the creation of alliances that all involved know will end in bloody peril at the worst possible moment is the height of suspense.
There is no greater rush than a properly timed betrayal.

He could probably do that in the other two games by destroying the board or other components, given that someone else owns the game.

Looks like you guys are getting a slapping.

Kek

Your "lol backstabbing" is just a variant of the prisoner's dilemma game. Prisoner's dilemma is the simplest and most analyzed game ever, you might as well play tic-tac-toe, which is a more interesting and deeper game.

There's nothing suspenseful or interesting about knowing that betrayal is always the most advantageous action.

And yes, you can "lol betrayal" in other games too. But why would you want to, when it's the dumbest game mechanic known to man? (Well, maybe it's tied with rolling dice to see who wins.)

The only way to make "lol betrayal" even slightly interesting is to introduce metagame rewards and punishments. (I.e., "if you betray me, then you're sleeping on the couch".)

At this point, why bother playing a ""game"" at all? You can just skip the five hour boredom part and just go straight to getting drunk and sleeping on the couch instead.

t. got betrayed by Italy

Because it's very much a game about well...diplomacy. Working with or against other players depending on the situation and with the entire game decided by that, rather than random chance.

>There's nothing suspenseful or interesting about knowing that betrayal is always the most advantageous action.

Except it's not. Much like the Prisoner's dilemma you mentioned, cooperation is generally a better option as once you betray someone you are unlikely to get them to trust you again that game. You need to weigh long term and short term goals to evaluate if it's the better option.

I've never had so much fun losing at a board game before.

That store's stock is kinda shit to be honest. Used to be this amazing source and then they got swamped with unsellable shit.
Black Plague was actually my second choice, I initially wanted Viticulture but it went out of stock while I was shoppin'.
I do like some zombie smashin' from time to time and Black Plague fixed some of the shit I disliked about vanilla.

> Because it's very much a game about well...diplomacy. Working with or against other players depending on the situation and with the entire game decided by that, rather than random chance.
No it isn't. Prisoner's dilemma is a solved game, like tic-tac-toe. The only rational way to play is to always betray. This has been proven in a mathematically rigorous way. (You already know this intuitively if you've ever played something just a little bit above standard ameritrash dice-rolling garbage. It's also the reason why serious eurogames usually avoid direct conflict mechanics.)

Yes, humans are irrational beings and will believe that cooperation makes sense even if it really doesn't mathematically. This is the one surprising result we found out when we solved prisoner's dilemma.

You really should move on to better games. Prisoner's dilemma is tic-tac-toe tier.

P.S. And yes, you can also do alliances and betrayals in practically any better modern game too. Including the two random ones I mentioned, Broom Service and Concordia. But like I said, why would you want to? It's not an interesting mechanic in any way.

I was actually contemplating getting Viticulture essential edition, but the theme just isn't interesting to me nor the main feature where your grapes are harvested, mashed then turned into wine.

I fucking love me some red wine so even though I'm pretty much a BurgerSpiel gamer, it appeals to me quite a bit.
Same thing happened with Scoville.
Hot peppers man... Cant live without that shit.

>put your 6 and 5 pieces together on the same bit of high coast next to a boat
>immediately race them to the closest island
>save them unless someone gets the 'move the monster tile' early by luck and closes of the island

Always seems to go that way. It feels kinda samey after a few games.

That's why I put my 1 value pieces on the edge and then get on a boat and pick up people then run straight into the sea monster. Or I take them all to the shark tile and get the whale to blow up the boat.

NONE MAY SURVIVE.

It's not a serious game but it really lightens the mood.

So, you solved Diplomacy? Cool, you're always welcome to prove it by showing us a 100% winrate on one of the many online Diplomacy platforms

"Solved" means that there's a well-known optimal strategy, not a 100% win rate.

>optimal strategy
>in a game about human communication
Thats like saying you solved arguing

Are you an idiot? Read what I wrote.

Prisoner's dilemma (and Diplomacy) are boring games precisely because the human communication aspect is pointless. There are mathematically correct optimal strategies, and none of them depend on communication.

They had a bunch of these at a 99cents store. Has anyone played it? Could you potentially make a superior game by combining multiple boxes?

Fucking hell. That's a bargain. I mean, it's not the best game ever, but it's fucking fun, and if you have a kid you want to introduce to minis and shit like that...

Technically, if you buy multiple boxes you cant really expand the game since the troups are all unique, but you can always tell that rule to fuck off.