But if you are playing a game seriously how can you have different tools available. Example, someone with a good memory versus people not allowed to bring a pen and paper. A well made game would have a system that doesn't leave anything except understanding of the game to the players.
Nope. If a game is a fair competitive test of one or more skills, then all we're doing is choosing which skills a game tests. Memory, quick thinking, tactical thinking, reaction time: games test a varied range of different skills to different degrees.
Remixes are a derivative work and are no longer the original.
That wasn't the point either of us were arguing in the slightest.
House rules are bullshit only because they almost always are terrible and poorly thought out. They're also not the original game. Unless you state what house rules you used each time you reference a play of a particular game, you're basically lying when you say that you played that game. ;^)
I agree with this. My question is, does this make something a better game by design?
If in Caylus, the score was hidden and everyone's resources were hidden, would it be a better game? If your craft goods in Peurto Rico were hidden from players like in Catan would that make it better?
Isn't this requirement of memorization in such games, where memorization is not relevant to the skills being tested, the equivalent to unnecessary "fiddly bits" in video games?
Depends on the game. From a game theory perspective, there's zero difference. If you ever showed it to me, I know it. I do keep track of all of the extant information in games I play, because I am actually trying to win. I use mnemonics and mental shortcuts to help with this. Game theory analysis assumes that your opponent is just as smart as you, and knows everything that he could possibly know. I also assume this when I play games (unless my opponents are unskilled, in which case I take advantage of what I believe they do not know).
Not everyone is good at certain physical activities. Not everyone can concentrate and maintain precise memory of numbers and cards. If you're bad at these things, then certain board games aren't for you. Same as if you lack fine motor control and try to play CounterStrike.
Generally, though, it's a weak mechanic to obfuscate deeper problems in a game's core design from less skilled players. Smallworld does it with the victory point chips only to trick unaware players into not realizing the game's outcome is largely determined some rounds before the end.
I'm a bit sad to see that my favorite example of hiding non-secret information has been skipped: Pandemic. The rules directly state that "players may not show the contents of their hands to their fellow players during the game. Players may however, freely tell each other what cards they have."
Anyone have any suggestions for what the designers were thinking? It's a co-operative board game so their is no point in not sharing the info with everyone else. Maybe the designers just wanted to encourage trolling?
It gets even better with the next paragraph in the rules: "Because Pandemic is a test of cooperation and mettle (and not memory), players may freely examine the contents of the Player Discard Pile and the Infection Discard Pile at any time."
See, I think that'd be a better mechanic to implement in games like Shadows Over Camelot or the newer Battlestar Galactica; the table talk limitations are bullshit, but if you just allow people to state overtly what they have, you still allow for lying.
I think the reason for that rule in pandemic is to force all the players to actually do something. Imagine if everyone played Pandemic with an open hand. Then it would be trivial for one person to play the game solitaire and just tell the other players what to do for the optimal chance of winning. I imagine that's what happened during testing.
So you keep your hand secret, but you can say what's in your hand. That makes it harder for a single player to remember what is in everyone's hands at all times and harder for one person to easily direct the game in an optimal strategy. It also forces all players to actually play the game. At the very least they need to say what is in their hands. It also introduces a factor of human error.
Rules like this rule in Pandemic I think are definitely crap. The game is fundamentally flawed, and they use a rule like this to cover it up. Still not as bad as the rules in Shadows over Camelot.
See, I think that'd be a better mechanic to implement in games like Shadows Over Camelot or the newer Battlestar Galactica; the table talk limitations are bullshit, but if you just allow people to state overtly what they have, you still allow for lying.
Those rules in Battlestar are to protect the Cylon player in their lies. If you could openly say what you have every could say exactly what they put in the destiny deck and then when you turned it over you would be like "well Jeff is the Cylon"
See, I think that'd be a better mechanic to implement in games like Shadows Over Camelot or the newer Battlestar Galactica; the table talk limitations are bullshit, but if you just allow people to state overtly what they have, you still allow for lying.
Those rules in Battlestar are to protect the Cylon player in their lies. If you could openly say what you have every could say exactly what they put in the destiny deck and then when you turned it over you would be like "well Jeff is the Cylon"
That's why that game, and Shadows, are shit and I don't play them. Fundamentally super broken.
I think the real way to fix those games is NO TALKING PERIOD. You have to decide if someone is the traitor or cylon based on their in-game actions. Maybe facial expressions or hand signals could come into play. No note passing, texting, etc. That is extra equipment!
Comments
Not everyone is good at certain physical activities. Not everyone can concentrate and maintain precise memory of numbers and cards. If you're bad at these things, then certain board games aren't for you. Same as if you lack fine motor control and try to play CounterStrike.
Generally, though, it's a weak mechanic to obfuscate deeper problems in a game's core design from less skilled players. Smallworld does it with the victory point chips only to trick unaware players into not realizing the game's outcome is largely determined some rounds before the end.
Anyone have any suggestions for what the designers were thinking? It's a co-operative board game so their is no point in not sharing the info with everyone else. Maybe the designers just wanted to encourage trolling?
It gets even better with the next paragraph in the rules: "Because Pandemic is a test of cooperation and mettle (and not memory), players may freely examine the contents of the Player Discard Pile and the Infection Discard Pile at any time."
So you keep your hand secret, but you can say what's in your hand. That makes it harder
for a single player to remember what is in everyone's hands at all times and harder for one person to easily direct the game in an optimal strategy. It also forces all players to actually play the game. At the very least they need to say what is in their hands. It also introduces a factor of human error.
Rules like this rule in Pandemic I think are definitely crap. The game is fundamentally flawed, and they use a rule like this to cover it up. Still not as bad as the rules in Shadows over Camelot.
I think the real way to fix those games is NO TALKING PERIOD. You have to decide if someone is the traitor or cylon based on their in-game actions. Maybe facial expressions or hand signals could come into play. No note passing, texting, etc. That is extra equipment!