In post 2741, PJ. wrote:I haven't played Dead of Winter, but I don't really like the concept of everyone having to act traitory to fulfill their side missions. And I believe that in Dead of Winter that there can also be multiple traitors? Also I don't understand there being a traitor in the first place from a thematic perspective. Why would anyone side with the zombies? That's weird. Again, haven't played it, but it just has a lot of question marks.
~~~
Why not just go with Legndary: Marvel instead of Sentinels of the multiverse? Instead of generic superhero-y stuff you get cards with the avengers on them. That has to be cooler, right?
A month late..
I have DoW, and whilst its a fun game I can understand CDB's hatred of it. (amongst others) I think ultimately Battlestar Galactica does the traitor mechanic a lot better. It can't (or shouldn't) have multiple traitors. In terms of reasoning, there is story behind it in the games, the one I remember offhand is that the traitor is tired of eating so little food and is greedy.
Also Legendary is a game that would be close to going on my "will never play" list. Which includes Diplomacy and Hanabi.
Mostly retired. Unless you ask or it's something interesting.
In post 2759, PJ. wrote:Right, I was talking to Yaw about this yesterday, there are some cooperative games that simply be "alpha gamer"ed into 1 person controlling all the actions. When we were teaching my sister Pandemic, we played two games, after the second she said after the first game she didn't really like it because she felt like she was the pawn on the table and not a player. The second game, once she got the rules, she was able to contribute and liked the game a lot better, but there 's definitely some personalities where people would be apt to take over the entire game cause they know what's right and everyone else doesn't, ect. He brought up liking games like Hanabi(and the new Hanabi-ish Beyond Baker Street), that are designed to not let that sort of thing happen. I believe there are also Co-Op games with secret action selection that help prevent that sort of thing. So if you aren't into the traitor games, there are still co-ops out there that aren't going to be alpha-gamer'd.
I think this is the reason my group don't do co-op's. One guy feels that one player always dominates and they become no fun. Dead of Winter got through on the basis of the traitor mechanic - we've only played it once in 2 years though. I got BSG through with a mixture of my gaming group and our christmas group and more recently X-Com, where the time limit prevents too much alpha-player gameplay, but the same guy still had issues with it. (and pandemic, once, when said guy wasn't around)
Mostly retired. Unless you ask or it's something interesting.
I like the concept of diplomacy but its hard to get 7 people together who are willing to go through all the simultaneous-action-resolution every turn
THIS POST IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT.
Gloomhaven a legacy game? We (our group) is currently playing Seafall, and whilst I don't see us not completing it, we are on game 5 and getting a bit disillusioned with it.
Mostly retired. Unless you ask or it's something interesting.
In post 2852, vonflare wrote:I like the concept of diplomacy but its hard to get 7 people together who are willing to go through all the simultaneous-action-resolution every turn
The game we played (the infamous UK meet Diplomacy game from years back) lasted almost the whole day, and I don't think I could have ever won. I basically slowly lost ground every turn and it made me hate everyone. Lots of discussion over what people were going to do but mostly that meant fuck all. I was in the middle to be fair, which apparently is a sucky position to start (although I'd argue that if there is a "sucky position to start" then it's not the best game) with CES at one side of me, so was going to struggle anyway. I remember feeling trapped in this losing battle where every turn took an age and I just didn't find it remotely exciting or fun. The guy I was talking about earlier who hates co-op really wants to play it, but I've holding out.
Hanabi is on my hate list, because it's a memory game with colours and numbers and it's everything my dyslexia-brain can't handle. It's not a horrible game, it's just one I can't do.
Legendary I maybe should give another chance, but I do find it one of the most boring games I've played.
Mostly retired. Unless you ask or it's something interesting.
Legendary is a game that seems dominated by better games on every metric.
WRT co-op games, when I run Sentinels I try to avoid talking to people about "but maybe you should do this" unless we're really, totally screwed unless the player knows to do ___. Maybe I shouldn't even do that, but losing because "oh! I didn't know I had that card" or "oh! I didn't read the card correctly" seems as bad or worse than me saying "check out ____" as they search their deck for the card of their choice. Either way, the small suboptimal moves usually don't matter in the end, and if they do, that's how people learn.
Everything you say and do matters. People will respond in ways you may never see. May those responses be what you intend.
In post 2854, Porochaz wrote:I was in the middle to be fair, which apparently is a sucky position to start (although I'd argue that if there is a "sucky position to start" then it's not the best game)
Wasn't the wording I used
The middle has the advantage that you can play multiple sides of the board, meaning you can deal with more people, have more fingers in pies. It's a sucky position for a newbie to find themselves in, because you kind of have to know what you want, deal with what's going on elsewhere on the board. Put a newbie in France, and he'll have a decently easy start and then can kind of grow into the game, sorta similar for England.
I think you were Austria, which is about as unkind to newbies as it'll get. Either the first 2 years you sort of manage to get the 3 wolves off you, and you are set for a pretty good game (as in, it's not too tricky then to become a contender for victory), or you are in the dumps straight away.
In retrospect we shouldn't have randomized, I think the game would've been less infamous
Last edited by mykonian on Tue May 30, 2017 12:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Surrender, imagine and of course wear something nice.
Gloomhaven a legacy game? We (our group) is currently playing Seafall, and whilst I don't see us not completing it, we are on game 5 and getting a bit disillusioned with it.
Yeah, Gloomhaven is legacy, campaign dungeon crawl. I think Seafall is just a bad game, I've only heard bad things and that's the first legacy game that guy made that wasn't made about an existing game.
Seafall has it's problems, but I have enjoyed most of it. The guy who has the massive lead, has done so through some mechanics that gave him loads of points extremely quickly. (the second game we needed 12 points to win, he got 8 in one turn, making him the runaway winner, the 4th game, we all did the same things and through sheer luck he kept getting 4 points for his action, we got coins/goods, again making him the runaway winner).
I have been second in the standings up until now (except the first game which I won) this means I don't get any benefits for winning, but I do get almost all the drawbacks for being high up the leaderboard. I've started feeling it slightly but I'll feel it more in games to come.
The last game I screwed something up, and whilst I could still get 3rd, there was not a chance I could win. So I tanked the game, so that in the overall rankings I would be 3rd (maybe 4th, I didn't have time to do the maths) and get some of the benefits the other players get. I don't like the mechanic where deliberately coming last in some games actually benefits you.
However, if I wasn't enjoying it, I wouldn't have gone to game 6. The theme and flavour are excellent, and the mechanics beyond those mentioned above are usually pretty good. Im playing with my group and we enjoyed playing Risk Legacy immensely, the banter that comes with the group usually makes it fun. (unless you are a salty fucker like I was last game) I absolutely don't think it's a bad game, I think there is a lot to it, and that there are balance issues with it. But I knew there were problems going in. I went into it knowing I would be an explorer rather than a raider or trader. Get more of the story rather than screw other players (which suits my playstyle - although I did steal the victory in the first game) and not worry too much about winning. The twists and turns of the story and being able to personalise and name pretty much everything keeps it somewhat interesting. Rob Daviau said himself that he should have condensed it further than he did, and it does seem like his ambition and imagination got the best of him and he added too much, but I definitely wouldn't call it a bad game, but I've only opened half the boxes thus far.
Mostly retired. Unless you ask or it's something interesting.
In post 2840, PJ. wrote:Apparently my recs from Quantico have changed to a top 5 of cyclades, Marco polo, viticulture, blood rage and 5 tribes. I think I want all those games.
Kemet > Cyclades. They're basically the same game though.
Five Tribe is continuing to creep higher and higher on my list of faves every time I play it.
For real. There's something so damn satisfying about picking up the pieces and dropping them, Mancala-style. And the way you can both pull off a killer move AND fuck over your opponents by dropping pieces in their way is just joyous.
I haven't checked out the expansions yet but I can only imagine improving upon a great formula.
I played Burgle Bros yesterday. I had a ton of fun. Would play again.
jdodge1019: hasjghsalghsakljghs is from vermont
jdodge1019: vermont is made of liberal freaks and cows
jdodge1019: he's not a liberal
jdodge1019: thus he is a cow
I played my copy of Mysterium for the first time this weekend! Lots of fun.
Also played Machi Koro. Really goes from slow to fast as quintessentially as possible. Don't know if I like it though.
Real new standout for me was Valley of the Kings. Neat little deckbuilder with the pyramid setup and the tomb mechanic. I bombed the first game but I feel like I learned a lot and was able to do really well in the second.
There will be no kisses tonight
There will be no holding hands tonight
'Cause what is now wasn't there before and should not be
Machi Koro just seems bad. I played it once and it was so unexciting and just blah on every level. No deep strategy, no real interesting decisions, the boring kind of luck that you have no control over, and just nothing exciting about it.
In post 2870, chamber wrote:I've played five tribes once and it seems like it would be the worst candidate ever for analysis paralysis. How do you fight against that?
Are you going first?
If so, do the awesome thing.
Otherwise, look for a good move but don't expect it to be there when your turn comes around. So get good at finding more awesome things.
Everything you say and do matters. People will respond in ways you may never see. May those responses be what you intend.
re: Five Tribes
there really isn't analysis paralysis... you want to take the move that's awesome and good for you before someone else does. if you can't do that, then make sure nobody else can do anything cool and exciting.
it looks overwhelming due to the amount of pieces but when you are actually in the moment there are only a handful of moves to consider at a time
In post 2867, implosion wrote:Machi Koro just seems bad. I played it once and it was so unexciting and just blah on every level. No deep strategy, no real interesting decisions, the boring kind of luck that you have no control over, and just nothing exciting about it.
accurate, it's okay if you want to familiarize someone with drafting and/or economy building but there are better options that are just as simple
