We played Shadow Hunters with Alexfrog's balanced variant on Saturday, and I'm planning to run off an overlay for the board and always use the new HP values. Giving Allie more HP and Daniel fewer makes the outcome a little less certain... at least when you're not allowed to attack yourself.
And yes, bring that copy of Innovation :P
edit: I finally caved and bought an iPad mini on Sunday, and it's been a super-useful long-distance relationship companion - Anthony and I have already played half a dozen games of Carcassonne and Ticket to Ride together.
Hanabi - Played two three-player games and ended with scores of 14 and 19. I think the 14 was mostly because one of our players was pretty drunk and couldn't remember anything he had. There is nothing more frustrating than being forced to discard and throwing away a 5.
Lords of Waterdeep: Scoundrels of Skullport - A pretty solid expansion to an already solid game. Some of the new elements are broken, as we discovered during play, but it's still a really fun game for 3+ people.
Pandemic - I knew all the issues with this game going in, but I still ended up having fun with it. But the only reason we had fun was because we completely threw out the communication rules and actually worked as a team with all of our cards open on the table. I honestly don't know why the original game just doesn't do it that way, it's hard enough to win even doing that. We played three times and only won the last game, and that was on the very last turn (card deck ran out).
My board game collection (and that of my friends) is fairly limited, but I just ordered the following games - it was better to order them all at once because shipping was for the whole lot instead of per game. - Ra - The Castles of Burgundy - Hanabi - Battle Line
A couple of them are going to be a birthday present for a friend, but the rest will be mine!
Also high up on the list of games I want are Agricola and Eclipse; I'm tempted to order them but I'd prefer it if other people bought them and not me. It seems like the best place to order Eclipse is still Amazon, even though international shipping is around $40 - that still comes out cheaper than local prices for Eclipse.
EDIT: Found Eclipse for $90 shipped. So, between Agricola for $64 shipped, and Eclipse for $90 shipped, which should I get?
Note that I'm in Australia, so whatever prices you have in mind may not be applicable to me.
EDIT: Found Eclipse for $90 shipped. So, between Agricola for $64 shipped, and Eclipse for $90 shipped, which should I get?
How many local friends will want to play a moderately heavy game often? If your group is 4+, Eclipse. 2-4, Agricola. Then adjust for how much you and your friends want to play each one because they're apples and oranges. :P
EDIT: Found Eclipse for $90 shipped. So, between Agricola for $64 shipped, and Eclipse for $90 shipped, which should I get?
How many local friends will want to play a moderately heavy game often? If your group is 4+, Eclipse. 2-4, Agricola. Then adjust for how much you and your friends want to play each one because they're apples and oranges. :P
Anyways, I knew this all along, but the correct answer is "buy both"; I just wanted to buy one and convince a friend of mine to buy the other one.
With that in mind, it's probably better to buy Eclipse and try to convince my friend to buy Agricola, since that's more likely to work.
Here are the rules for Caverna. It's Agricola 2.0 with Dwarves. It seems like it doesn't have the bullshit cards, which is good. It also has two major ways of getting victory points, which are peacefully developing your land/cave and building weapons to go on quests.
Here are the rules for Caverna. It's Agricola 2.0 with Dwarves. It seems like it doesn't have the bullshit cards, which is good. It also has two major ways of getting victory points, which are peacefully developing your land/cave and building weapons to go on quests.
Why did he get rid of the production wheel? It simplifies so much of the fiddly bits of Agricola and Le Harve that keeps me from playing them as often as I want! It's seriously the best thing about Ora et Labora. The rest of the game is neat too but I keep thinking about how I can make a production wheel for Le Harve and Agricola, they so need it!
Is it a duel if two "everyone grab the totem" cards are played and the person who grabs the totem is also one of the people who played the cards in jungle speed?
Hannabi - 18 why the fuck do we always end with 18!
Tichu - Had 2 games, one in which we rolled the other team in 5 hands. The other were it was a grind fest of me hoping the new player actually PLAYED THE CARD THAT I GAVE HIM!
Serenissima - A game about getting goods and shipping them for either cash or victory points. Excellent balance with how combat is dealt with (defenders get a giant upside) would give it another go.
Hansa Teutonica - Finally this is the second time I was able to play with my own copy and lost by 2 points due to a pivotal placement with my opponent in Hamburg.
At least he got rid of the stupid cards in Agricola. Might sell my Agricola and get a Caverna just for that reason.
This.
It's been a loooong time since I've played Agricola. Is the "stupid cards" problem solved by swapping out the decks? I know they make all sorts of different ones like the advanced player deck, the silly deck, the world championship deck, etc.
At least he got rid of the stupid cards in Agricola. Might sell my Agricola and get a Caverna just for that reason.
This.
It's been a loooong time since I've played Agricola. Is the "stupid cards" problem solved by swapping out the decks? I know they make all sorts of different ones like the advanced player deck, the silly deck, the world championship deck, etc.
Never saw a world championship deck. My set came with B - basic, I - interactive, and C - complex. All of them were annoying. Best strategy was usually to just play the game and ignore the cards. You only played cards when you really had nothing better to do and a spare action, and the cost was minimal. Cards were only worth it if you drew a really powerful one, or a good combo.
I advocate using a draft set up when you're playing Agricola. Less randomness and lets you make a plan for the game instead of dealing with a crappy hand.
Nothing, but some people don't have that as their utility.
Look at it this way: For the sake of argument, lets say you watch and enjoy "Attack on Titan". I have no intention to watch Attack on Titan. I don't think it's a bad show (because I haven't watched it), but I've heard enough about the show that made me decide not to watch it. But you say, "But, Victor, AoT is such a great show! It makes you contemplate the existence of humanity and blahdy blah." Well, Yeah, sure, fine, but that's not what I want out of a show right now. I want a light, funny show that will entertain me with the frivolous and silly problems of every day life. I want a comedy slice of life. I want to laugh and feel happy and calm when the episode is over. That is my utility.
For some people, they don't have to win to have fun. Winning is not core to their utility of having fun. Maybe it's the between turns conversation. Maybe it's the inter-player drama in the game that makes the game fun for them. Who knows? People have different reasons for playing games.
I don't have to win to have fun either; even though I'm pretty good at games, if I only had fun when I won then games would probably be a relatively poor use of my time.
For some people, they don't have to win to have fun. Winning is not core to their utility of having fun. Maybe it's the between turns conversation. Maybe it's the inter-player drama in the game that makes the game fun for them. Who knows? People have different reasons for playing games.
None of the reasons you mentioned are things you can't experience while also playing to win.
The issue I have with people saying that they "play to have fun" is that it seems to come with an assumption that somehow this is mutually exclusive with "playing to win" - as though you can't do both.
In my view, the aspect of actually playing the game seriously is simply an additional component that stimulates your brain. It doesn't go against the other aspects that add to the fun of playing games, like the social interaction, or drama between players. In fact, playing more seriously can often add to these other aspects of "fun".
Like Dromaro said, if you have to ask, you won't understand the answer. :-)
I play most games casually. I prefer to intuit my moves and go with what I feel fits my mood, the company, and the theme of the game. For me, that's fun. I'm not generally interested in optimized strategies, ideal decisions, and so on. For this reason I really dislike technically "legal", but thematically incompatible strategies in some games (hard to come up with an example on the fly here.) I'd much rather roleplay as my character, pawn, or proxy (even if my "character" is just my little growing settlement in Catan) than optimize for winning. That's work. That's stressful. That's adversarial. And generally it's not what I'm interested in. I'm there for the experience as a whole, not the victory.
I'm there for the experience as a whole, not the victory.
I'm there for both, and the common implication that I can't be is something that I find a little annoying.
I'm not going to say I don't understand the mentality; after all, it's not like I think everyone should enjoy doing maths even though I do. People may not enjoy the art of optimal decision making, or analysing a game in depth - I understand that. People can easily be too lazy, tired, or preoccupied to think really hard about a game a lot of the time, and sometimes people want to play a game in a much more relaxed manner.
However, it does annoy me very much when people act as though I'm the one doing something wrong by taking a game more seriously than they do.
I don't think they're mutually exclusive UNLESS you're bordering on being a "that guy", who puts the victory ahead of social niceties.
For me personally, they're mutually exclusive most of the time as I tend to see playing to win in a congenial setting as somewhat adversarial. It's a personality thing and I don't project it onto others.
I have fun playing games on all sorts of levels. It's the competition, the guessing, the risk taking, defying odds, etc..
I think fun is attained by achieving, at least in part, my hitting your utility, whatever that may be. Beat Rym, win the game, do this weird thing that abuses an obscure rule, so on.
I find it extremely difficult to get much meaning out of statements like "I play games just to have fun!" Certainly. You don't play them because it's painful or frustrating (unless you're a masocist).
I find fun to be intrinsic to the act. Kinda like sex. Sure, we can tell others what exactly we like about it but in broad strokes, you do it because it's fun.
Going to be more precise, the person I traded comments with was lamenting never being more than a "mediocre" gamer but he had fun playing. I tried to explain he could keep having fun, improve and slowly begin to win more games.
He just replied, "Why am I required to get better?" There is where he loses me. Shut up, be mediocre and don't bitch about it or do what you have to to get better and raise yourself out of self imposed mediocrity.
Comments
And yes, bring that copy of Innovation :P
edit: I finally caved and bought an iPad mini on Sunday, and it's been a super-useful long-distance relationship companion - Anthony and I have already played half a dozen games of Carcassonne and Ticket to Ride together.
Hanabi - Played two three-player games and ended with scores of 14 and 19. I think the 14 was mostly because one of our players was pretty drunk and couldn't remember anything he had. There is nothing more frustrating than being forced to discard and throwing away a 5.
Lords of Waterdeep: Scoundrels of Skullport - A pretty solid expansion to an already solid game. Some of the new elements are broken, as we discovered during play, but it's still a really fun game for 3+ people.
Pandemic - I knew all the issues with this game going in, but I still ended up having fun with it. But the only reason we had fun was because we completely threw out the communication rules and actually worked as a team with all of our cards open on the table. I honestly don't know why the original game just doesn't do it that way, it's hard enough to win even doing that. We played three times and only won the last game, and that was on the very last turn (card deck ran out).
- Ra
- The Castles of Burgundy
- Hanabi
- Battle Line
A couple of them are going to be a birthday present for a friend, but the rest will be mine!
Also high up on the list of games I want are Agricola and Eclipse; I'm tempted to order them but I'd prefer it if other people bought them and not me. It seems like the best place to order Eclipse is still Amazon, even though international shipping is around $40 - that still comes out cheaper than local prices for Eclipse.
EDIT: Found Eclipse for $90 shipped.
So, between Agricola for $64 shipped, and Eclipse for $90 shipped, which should I get?
Note that I'm in Australia, so whatever prices you have in mind may not be applicable to me.
With that in mind, it's probably better to buy Eclipse and try to convince my friend to buy Agricola, since that's more likely to work.
I can't remember how to play Settlers AT ALL, I'm so doomed. I need to read up before Sunday so that I don't bog down the group.
http://lookoutgames.datenaustausch.net/20131003_CAVERNA/Caverna_Rules_EN.pdf
EDIT: Oh wow, you weren't kidding. It's really Agricola with Dwarves pasted on top.
Hannabi - 18 why the fuck do we always end with 18!
Tichu - Had 2 games, one in which we rolled the other team in 5 hands. The other were it was a grind fest of me hoping the new player actually PLAYED THE CARD THAT I GAVE HIM!
Serenissima - A game about getting goods and shipping them for either cash or victory points. Excellent balance with how combat is dealt with (defenders get a giant upside) would give it another go.
Hansa Teutonica - Finally this is the second time I was able to play with my own copy and lost by 2 points due to a pivotal placement with my opponent in Hamburg.
Potato Dibber!
http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/389250/draft-agricola-like-a-magic-booster-draft
They : Why must I constantly strive to be better, not play to win, and just try to have fun?
Me: If you must ask the question, you will not understand the answer.
Seriously, what is so complex about the idea of "You play to win the game!"?
Look at it this way: For the sake of argument, lets say you watch and enjoy "Attack on Titan". I have no intention to watch Attack on Titan. I don't think it's a bad show (because I haven't watched it), but I've heard enough about the show that made me decide not to watch it.
But you say, "But, Victor, AoT is such a great show! It makes you contemplate the existence of humanity and blahdy blah."
Well, Yeah, sure, fine, but that's not what I want out of a show right now. I want a light, funny show that will entertain me with the frivolous and silly problems of every day life. I want a comedy slice of life. I want to laugh and feel happy and calm when the episode is over. That is my utility.
For some people, they don't have to win to have fun. Winning is not core to their utility of having fun. Maybe it's the between turns conversation. Maybe it's the inter-player drama in the game that makes the game fun for them. Who knows? People have different reasons for playing games.
The issue I have with people saying that they "play to have fun" is that it seems to come with an assumption that somehow this is mutually exclusive with "playing to win" - as though you can't do both.
In my view, the aspect of actually playing the game seriously is simply an additional component that stimulates your brain. It doesn't go against the other aspects that add to the fun of playing games, like the social interaction, or drama between players. In fact, playing more seriously can often add to these other aspects of "fun".
I play most games casually. I prefer to intuit my moves and go with what I feel fits my mood, the company, and the theme of the game. For me, that's fun. I'm not generally interested in optimized strategies, ideal decisions, and so on. For this reason I really dislike technically "legal", but thematically incompatible strategies in some games (hard to come up with an example on the fly here.) I'd much rather roleplay as my character, pawn, or proxy (even if my "character" is just my little growing settlement in Catan) than optimize for winning. That's work. That's stressful. That's adversarial. And generally it's not what I'm interested in. I'm there for the experience as a whole, not the victory.
It's hard to articulate, for me it's intuitive.
I'm not going to say I don't understand the mentality; after all, it's not like I think everyone should enjoy doing maths even though I do. People may not enjoy the art of optimal decision making, or analysing a game in depth - I understand that. People can easily be too lazy, tired, or preoccupied to think really hard about a game a lot of the time, and sometimes people want to play a game in a much more relaxed manner.
However, it does annoy me very much when people act as though I'm the one doing something wrong by taking a game more seriously than they do.
For me personally, they're mutually exclusive most of the time as I tend to see playing to win in a congenial setting as somewhat adversarial. It's a personality thing and I don't project it onto others.
I think fun is attained by achieving, at least in part, my hitting your utility, whatever that may be. Beat Rym, win the game, do this weird thing that abuses an obscure rule, so on.
I find it extremely difficult to get much meaning out of statements like "I play games just to have fun!" Certainly. You don't play them because it's painful or frustrating (unless you're a masocist).
I find fun to be intrinsic to the act. Kinda like sex. Sure, we can tell others what exactly we like about it but in broad strokes, you do it because it's fun.
Going to be more precise, the person I traded comments with was lamenting never being more than a "mediocre" gamer but he had fun playing. I tried to explain he could keep having fun, improve and slowly begin to win more games.
He just replied, "Why am I required to get better?" There is where he loses me. Shut up, be mediocre and don't bitch about it or do what you have to to get better and raise yourself out of self imposed mediocrity.