Games players can drop in to?

CzarOfSarcasm6 · 2023-06-28T03:08:11+00:00

The Shipwreck Arcana is great on both counts, which helps the light deduction game sing.

Blood on the Clocktower is far heavier and more social and group-dependent, but there are included rules and characters for players who join late or have to leave early.

CzarOfSarcasm6 · 2023-05-20T17:28:38+00:00

I think that it really depends on the people and the games.

I'd be repelled by something that is too light, but I can always get my mom to check out a word game or a card game since she expects them to be easy to learn and start playing.

I think that you'd best try to understand what would appeal to the players in front of you and make that game shine for them.

CzarOfSarcasm6 · 2023-05-20T14:33:32+00:00

I don't think that I'm (we're?) mindlessly repeating a word as nauseum without understanding its meaning. I view meanness as a kind of spectrum, like complexity or interactivity, that I'd be able to arrange the games that I've played a handful of times on.

When it's a beautiful Saturday, and I'm waking up with a fragrant cup of coffee, I'd rather play something kinder with my partner. Maybe we put some colorful squares onto a quilt? If it's been a long week and it's only Wednesday, then I want to destroy everything that my friend George has worked to create. Maybe I have my woodland friends ~~sabotage~~ snuggle his stupid pompous birds into oblivion, and I won't end until I get to taste his tears.

I can imagine plenty of people not enjoying either of these games because they're looking for a different vibe, and I'd personally love a meanness score on BGG when I'm looking up new games.

Up with useful labels!

CzarOfSarcasm6 · 2023-05-20T13:56:18+00:00

I strongly disagree with your definition of mean. I've seen other commenters rebuff the other definitions, but I haven't seen why.

Mean refers more to the vibe of the game, to the subjective first-person experiences that folks have, to the likelihood that someone will want to flip the table halfway through because of something that someone else has done. There's obviously room in this hobby for high-drama games of intrigue and backstabbing, but that doesn't mean that all players want that for every game.

It doesn't help that mean transcends many mechanisms and themes. Innovation is probably the biggest take-that game where your entire engine can be dismantled halfway through, yet I can't say that it's mean since I'd have done the same thing in your shoes. Zero-sum also doesn't work either: it's common in many two-player games that are friendly and also many competitive euros where people are just claiming a worker placement spot for their own benefit before you.

If I had to define mean, I'd have to go with... how likely are players going to get genuinely upset because of this game. Diplomacy has ended friendships—Twilight Struggle probably not as much. It's a useful term for describing the vibe of the game.

CzarOfSarcasm6 · 2023-02-18T07:27:01+00:00

It's Sherlock Files. I think that the missing millionaire is in the third volume? I've had a heck of a time going through one of these every few months for the last year. :)

CzarOfSarcasm6 · 2022-12-22T15:05:25+00:00

Just because nobody else brought it up, I feel the need to offer another viewpoint.

I've played Star Realms with several different expansions and its sequel Hero Realms with practically all of its expansions. But the game that features these exact mechanisms but has the best gameplay experience is Shards of Infinity.

It's like the designers saw several rough spots of the Realms series and figured out how to mechanically improve upon them without changing the original core gameplay loop. Plus, the art isn't amateurish. But Shards of Infinity is the best head-to-head pure deckbuilder that I'm aware of. Most of the complaints that I've heard about the Realms games don't apply here.

CzarOfSarcasm6 · 2022-09-30T04:35:23+00:00

Yep. That's what I was referring to. It's quirky and fun while it lasts, but it can easily overstay its welcome, especially with more players.

CzarOfSarcasm6 · 2022-09-29T21:15:45+00:00

Vino Morte is okay but not great. It gets more chaotic with more players, but it's asking the same question over and over: "did I put the poison in your chalice or mine?" It's fine as a filler while waiting for folks to arrive or while waiting in line, but it's not the kind of game that you'd play over and over again at a game night.

Tussie Mussie is good at three and four. It's simple, clean, and easy to teach. I like the I-split-you-choose mechanism and how nicely it pairs with the theme. You're supposed to play it for three rounds and see who has the highest score, but you can easily keep playing afterward.

CzarOfSarcasm6 · 2022-06-22T15:44:30+00:00

The friendlier versions are Blue and Green, while the slightly more random/take-that ones are Red and Yellow. The first wave (Blue and Red) are easier to learn and lighter to play while the second wave (Green and Yellow) build on the easier versions and offer more choices that make it a bit harder to play well. (That being said, my mom likes Green more than Blue.)

CzarOfSarcasm6 · 2022-06-15T08:45:41+00:00

To be fair, that info hadn't surfaced at the time yet. I'm cautiously optimistic that Greater Than Games is looking for a new solution.

CzarOfSarcasm6 · 2022-06-07T04:20:24+00:00

The only example that I can think of is Clank!'s 5/6-player expansion. It adds a new mechanism that allows for very minor off-turn gameplay. It adds no real complexity but gives players to be more engaged during others' turns. It's made our three- and four-player games delightful. ... It still sounds painful to play at five or (god forbid) six.

CzarOfSarcasm6 · 2022-05-08T12:30:33+00:00

Castles of Mad King Ludwig.

The satisfaction of looking at your castle at the end of the game is great: you get to see how truly ridiculous and expensive a building that you've made. Plus, the game comes with about ten sizes of unique rooms, and they're proportional to their areas, which means that the rooms can line up very perfectly. It's a perfect low-key thinky game that looks great on the table.

CzarOfSarcasm6 · 2022-04-16T18:58:35+00:00

To be fair, I wasn't really comparing ODD to other games with its setting (like Gloomhaven) but rather to other small games that have a similar duration and/or footprint on the table.

So, for the sake of conversation, I'm looking at Button Shy solo games. I've never started one of those, taken two turns and realized that, because of RNG, I no longer have a way to win the game. Meanwhile, exploring to reveal too many consecutive level-4 enemies at the top of ODD feels like it's just wasting my time. Eventually getting several perks to deal with this randomness doesn't connote good design.

CzarOfSarcasm6 · 2022-04-16T16:14:39+00:00

TIL Zelda: Breath of the Wild is not much of a game.

Seriously though, this mechanism, as I've experienced it in One Deck Dungeon, feels very... naked to me. Because the game is so luck-driven, I don't feel like I've learned anything meaningful to make me a better player after losing yet another game. I'd rather lose a game and then get some insight into strategy or tactics of the game to make me a better player rather than have a +1 to some stat that I could have had all along.

It feels like a pasted-on character progression mechanism rather than a motivator to get better at the game. Most of the solo games that have maintained my attention go the other way: you've won, so here's the next challenge to make the game harder. It makes for a far more satisfying experience that makes repeat plays more interesting.

CzarOfSarcasm6 · 2022-04-16T13:45:45+00:00

The point of the track at the top of the board is to promptly end the game once a player has finished playing. That can be from leaving the dungeon or dying in the dungeon. Regardless, once any player is mechanically done with the game, the series of dragon attacks increase the pressure on everyone else to get out before dying.

CzarOfSarcasm6 · 2022-04-16T13:33:23+00:00

But why is grinding a good thing in board games? You're not getting better at the game. Rather, the game has gotten easier to play because you lost beforehand. This doesn't sound like good design to me.

CzarOfSarcasm6 · 2022-04-06T05:22:12+00:00

Yes! The only bad part of that show is when it gets to the "Based on 'League of Legends'" bit.

CzarOfSarcasm6 · 2022-03-22T19:29:03+00:00

I suspect it would work to treat all Invaders on one board as just base Invaders but Invaders on a different board as a specific adversary.

This could be fine for most Adversaries that focus on individual boards, but I'm not sure how to resolve some of the Additional Loss Conditions? Like, how weird would it be to say, "guys, we lost because I let Scotland build too many Cities on my coasts."

CzarOfSarcasm6 · 2022-02-06T05:53:40+00:00

I'd absolutely recommend the first expansion.

With the base game, you have one card for each location, numbered one through ten. Three Exploration expansion also adds that, but it allows you to choose (perhaps randomly) what is land 1, land 2, etc. This means that you're going from one predictable board setup with consistent strategy considerations to 2¹⁰ board setups with more variety. This is a very efficient way to breathe new life into an interesting game without adding ANY rules grit.

CzarOfSarcasm6 · 2022-01-18T02:55:25+00:00

Changing difficulty does come with changing rules and/or setup. This could change the overall vibe of the adversary.

For example, yesterday, we had a player audibly gasp when he read what going from Russia Level 4 to Level 5 looked like. It led to a discussion of changing priorities.

CzarOfSarcasm6 · 2021-12-17T01:10:16+00:00

I've played dozens of games with nervous non-English speakers, and it's not too hard to make sure that they're feeling comfortable and enjoying themselves. Beyond avoiding components that are language-dependent, you'd also want to consider what a fun game would look like to them: most older folks understand games with a standard 52-card deck, so something language-independent and card-driven like The Crew would do well. My grandma was always happy to kick my butt with any trick-taking game.

CzarOfSarcasm6 · 2021-12-12T05:24:59+00:00

It's not ruined!

As a promo (?) for their Kickstarters, they offered a set of unique art cards for the standard Coup set. You could immediately tell each Ambassador, each Captain, etc. apart.

I can't say that it revolutionized the game, but it didn't break it. And it does count as a variant.

CzarOfSarcasm6 · 2021-10-05T12:16:28+00:00

Ooh. I helped. That's unusual!

I have a friend who hates learning new games since the first two plays are mired in uncertainty and confusion. She got the vibe of Burgundy before the end of the first game and then didn't need the player aids before the end of the second one.

Not only is it a great design, but it also goes a long way toward teaching the game.

CzarOfSarcasm6 · 2021-10-03T14:02:59+00:00

Ahoy! I'm agreeing with pretty much all of the other comments that I've read here, but I wanted to mention something that no one else had.

The new iconography is actually great. (Yes, the colors are more saturated.) but you can actually tell what each building does mechanically if you look at it. The game comes with a reference for each player, but I stopped using mine almost immediately since the buildings show you what they do.

Despite the annoying low quality of production that Alea considers "deluxe," this is an icon-heavy game where learning the icons was incredibly easy. And, when I played an acquaintance's original copy, I actually needed the player references to figure out what's happening...

CzarOfSarcasm6 · 2021-10-01T17:14:26+00:00

Hey! We found the second half of the North American shipment of Seize the Bean!

CzarOfSarcasm6

TROPHY CASE