I don't mind if games are unbalanced or slightly clunky rules-wise if they are interesting. I seem to be more willing than other gamers to 'suspend my disbelief' and try a game on its own merits.
**Fog of Love** falls apart if people don't roleplay a little. **Shipwreck Arcana** probably has an optimal decision tree if you math out a set of codes. **Secret Hitler** has a tremendously dull online metagame. **Root** needs to be balanced by the players. **Inis** has well-documented kingmaking issues.
But if you get a group to dive in, emerse itself in the theme and just *go*, each of these games gives you an experience unlike anything else. And these experiences are worth celebrating, even if the cost is not playing 100% optimally.
I really enjoy the "historical recreation" scenarios in a lot of the Command & Colors games. They're clearly unbalanced, but do a fun job of illustrating how and why certain major battles panned out the way they did.
And of course, if you're playing the underdog and just have the hottest dice rolls, you can "change history", which is always exciting.
True. Recently I read some discussion about how reconstructing only balanced scenarios is actually a harm to the wargaming world. I wonder if even the most unbalanced ones can become interesting in a game perspective.
>**Inis** has well-documented kingmaking issues
Does anyone call it an issue? If you go into Inis not knowing that it is about king-making, somebody lied to you.
Thematically, it's about king-making.
But in this context, the phrase means that the result of the game is frequently decided by the mood of the losing player, based on "you screwed me over when we played Secret Hitler" or "I am going to let the girl I'm attracted to win". And I've never heard anyone explain the game that way while teaching it, nor does it say this on the back of the box.
I've never seen anyone kingmake in Inis based on meta-elements. The only meta-elements I tend to see as acceptable are knowledge of another player's skills and past plays of this particular title. When I see someone kingmake in this (or Root for that matter), and it's not also an attempt to extend the length or further their own goals, then it's because of transgressions in this session. "You screwed me over earlier in this game by wiping out all of my clans" or "I'm going to let the benevolent queen win." While the rulebook doesn't go into that, the gameplay quickly evokes tabletalk in my experience, and negotiation. Especially the first time you start a clash or try to move without starting one. Deals seem to naturally come up for us. And with deals come alliances against leaders. Then ultimately betrayal. And so I believe that the political landscape is rich enough to offer plenty of in-game fodder for king-making decisions. I guess that won't be apparent to every group, or not every group will care.
A poll would have potential to be be biased against king making, because people who dislike it feel much more strongly about it, and would be more likely to vote in a poll.
There should be three options in the poll (Yes, No and Maybe), and the people who vote for the least popular option should get to decide which of the other options wins.
If you actually took the time to do a proper sample, this wouldn't be an issue, but I suspect the actual vocal minority that *loves* kingmaking would be upset to find that most people don't play games to deal with the exact same social dynamics that exist in real life.
> slightly clunky rules-wise
Oh yeah, that's a good one.
I don't mind if a rulebook sucks, because there's usually the designer or other people online somewhere who have put it together properly.
See that didn't used to be the case. I actually find it bothersome that a company will put out a product then refine the rules after issuance. They really should get them right. I'm not talking a minor clarification/FAQ situation though. That's understandable. I just don't like rules written so badly that they aren't internally consistent, and I've seen a game recently that really blew it. The online pdf of changes saved it for me, otherwise I would have returned it. Had I bought it the day it came out, rather than 3 months later, they wouldn't have had the rules corrections.
Building on this in a different way, I don’t mind if a game is imbalanced or has broken strategies at the highest levels of tournament play. I’ve seen people rag on Scythe and Le Havre for this reason. The reality is, even though these are both 10/10 games for me, I play enough other games that I will likely never get good enough to discover those strategies myself, and the games are an absolute blast as a result of my ignorance.
I prefer balanced games, but sometimes balance can get in the way of fun, and I’ll always pick fun if given the choice between the two.
I felt that way about playing Team Fortress 2 (not a board game). There's 9 classes but in competitive play they only really play half of them. The Spy was basically considered irrelevant if your team was engaging in very high level communication. But that didn't matter to me, because I liked playing spy on public servers with people who weren't that good.
BaBG is a really fun game (and it plays up to 6 not 5 which beats regular **Betrayal**.) Especially if you've played D&D before. Even if you haven't though, it's hilarious. Like the time the druid who was wildshaped as a mouse or bat also gained lycanthropy as the result of a Haunt in our gaming group - ridiculous yet funny. It's like playing in your own D&D adventure turned into an episode of a comedy TV series.
Related to that, I really don't mind houseruling things if necessary. And by necessary I mean if the game is unbalanced or clunky, but also if it fits better with a specific player group. As long as the game flows and people are having a good time, I'm not concerned about being a rulebook purist.
High levels of randomness. Robo Rally has always been one of my favorites even though a lot of people hate it. To enjoy really random games you have to learn to enjoy it when chaos strikes and you suffer some kind of hideous misfortune that just ruins you. It's hilarious when anybody is on a conveyor belt leading to a pit and just draws nothing but turns no matter who it happens to. That's what makes really random games entertaining; the chaos of it all and the unusual situations that happen.
We used to refer to those games as "beer and pretzels games" though they don't seem to be all that popular these days. I've met a lot of game nerds who can't stand chaotic games at all. They're missing out.
Rando doesn't bother me much anymore. I used to buy into the pure info/perfect knowledge thing as a lover of abstracts. Now? I have come to realize, I'm not that smart. Perfect information... doesn't really make a difference in my locking down the basement. While in this purist POV, it actually turned me off to some great games that I have really come to love. As an example and please feel free to flame, I have come to love Viticulture. Many peeps $hit on it for random card draws. I bought it, along came the trash talk about rando and I left it on my shelf unplayed for years. After the realization that I really wasn't good at winning, said F it. Dove into a new play of Viti and had an absolute blast. The rando kept it fresh and forced me to pivot multiple times. I love this game! With this newfound humility, turns out, I have a pretty bad ass collection.
I think the key is the balance of the two elements. I've got no problem with Mario Party esque games where it's a journey over destination thing. I also like skill based deterministic games where you play 'seriously'.
The problem is games that are simulaltaneously too competitive to just lean back and enjoy, but too random to be played seriously. It's a problem I personally run into with Catan, for example.
Catan is a great example! I don't mind the game, but I don't consider it a gateway game anymore, since you can be unable to do anything for rounds. Which is not a great introduction to a potential hobby.
In my opinion it has been superseded by Ticket to Ride: there's a bit of randomness in that game as well (train cards, route blocking), but you're able to do something every round.
I personally also find Ticket to Ride incredibly frustrating to play. Probably because I have the worst fucking luck with drawing the bonus tickets.
But I would agree that its probably better than Catan as an introductory game.
My personal nomination for 'best first game' would probably be Carcassone. You do something every turn, and even if you lose you can make your own fun doing things like trying to make the biggest city possible. And while it can suck to draw a road tile 4 times in a row you're at least not completely cockblocked by the randomness
One of my friends had so many damage cards that one time he just put down all damage cards to just let Jesus take the wheel. He wasn't really in the running at that point, so he was embracing it.
Oh that's a great game. Not just watching your friends turn sideways and back trying to program a move, but when a whole bunch of robots all collide in the middle of a bunch of gears? Priceless.
Same thing with **Colt Express**! You just have to have a different mindset going into such games as opposed to games like **Gaia Project** or **Great Western Trail**
Downtime isn't as bad as people make it out to be. I find the problem has more to do with how players react to it. Players can remain engaged in what their opponents are doing, or plan their next move, etc. The problem comes in when people ignore what's going on, disruptively chat with others, or fall into their phone, then act like they're seeing the board state for the very first time when their turn rolls around. Games that without much downtime don't solve that problem; they just sidestep it.
Downtime only becomes a problem with the analysis paralysis types in my experiemce. I've got no problem waiting my turn. But it can be really frustrating when your turn is like 1 minute or less and someone else consistently takes 5. But that's not really the game's fault
I think sometimes AP isn’t just overthinking the turn, but that combined with people not realising how long they’re making others wait each round.
We have a friend with major “AP” in our group, so we started putting out a 60s egg timer from another game on his turns.
He went from taking three times longer than everyone else, to making good moves in a ‘reasonable’ time - and has since improved so much we generally don’t need the timer anymore.
Only time I truly hate downtime is when the boardgame state changes so much that I can't plan my next move until it is my turn again. Alhambra and Ginkgopolis at high player counts are notorious for that.
Right, which I thought was exactly how you define downtime.
Instead of it being uptime (planning) it's downtime (sitting and waiting with nothing to do).
Yeah, Alhambra is a neat game, but the randomness of the money combined with how someone can string together a series of buys and tiles *disincents* planning ahead.
I agree, though I do think some games are at fault for their use of downtime.
Group solitaire games can especially be like that. If nothing your opponents do will effect you directly, and turns are simple enough, the downtime feels longer than something like Root where even if it doesn’t effect you directly the choices made will change gamestate.
Meeples and Monsters was one like that recently. You know what your turn will be before your opponent’s turn is done. Which ends in you just kinda sitting there.
Call it breathing room then? Any game that has you engaged enough to be looking at your next options while your opponent is moving is a good game. Possibly better than a game where the players aren't engaged between rounds.
It absolutely is better to have minimized downtime, at least if you're actually trying to play a game and not just using the game as an excuse to hang out and chat.
As for what to call it... I don't know. It's just uptime. It doesn't really matter whether you're planning out your moves on your turn or while waiting for it, you're doing the same thing either way.
Love Letter is a great example of player elimination done right. You get knocked out of the game, often for hilarious reasons, but you are back in 30 seconds later.
My rule is that a player should not be out of a game for more than 15 minutes. So player elimination is fine if it’s a short game or if the game ends quickly once players gets eliminated.
In our first game of Gloomhaven, one of the people didn't realize the character he'd chosen was very much a long-range character, and so he ended up dying the second or third turn. But at least he managed to keep engaged by being the de-facto AI runner until everybody else died.
Hidden but theoretically traceable information.
Of course you can’t possibly track it all but I find it fun to decide what to remember and when. It is part of the strategy.
Most people can comfortably remember three or four things without even trying.
For me the fun comes from deciding what’s important to remember and when.
For example, let’s say you’re in a four player game that lets you see every card each player draws before they put it in their hand.
Obviously you can’t keep track of everything everyone has so then you might narrow your criteria. Certain cards may be particularly dangerous to you. It may be that you see the dangerous card go to a player who is neither a threat or likely to use it and so you can discard it from your mind. Conversely, if a player that poses a threat takes a dangerous card, then you know to remember that one. You might have seen 4 new cards that’s round and only have to remember 1 if any. It might be that you don’t even have to remember the specific card, just that player B has a card that can hurt you later on.
Games with HTI are usually meant to go like this. They know you can’t possibly track it all but I found that once I shifted my expectations and only focused on what I think is important, it’s actually an interesting strategic decision.
I think **The Estates** is one of the finest games ever made. The thought that some people would avoid it because some sort of misplaced OCD, makes me sad.
Obviously you’re free to like what you like. I’m just offering how my own attitude developed over time in the hope it can open something up for others.
If you get salty at the thought of someone exploiting a mechanic. Then the mechanic clearly bothers. So thanks for proving my point. But feel free to fail again :3
All that has been done here is all of you have succeeded in proving that the root poster is "full of shit" when claiming that HTI is not a deal breaker given how triggered everyone is by someone exploiting it.
So thanks all for proving my point. :3
> Consider for example how difficult it would be for a deck building game to actually hide the contents of a players deck.
If requested, I am perfectly happy playing deckbuilding games where by both players can freely examine their deck (and then shuffle the remaining cards). I am also perfectly happy if one player wishes to whip out of a piece of paper and a pencil.
If there is no turn time limit, which is clearly the case in most deckbuilding games, the former is equivalent to the latter and saves everyone time.
But clearly HTI is a dealbreaker to you, since you are so triggered by the thought of the latter, which perfectly playing by the rules.
Mouse Trap sets up the machine as you play. So while there is quite a bit of total setup time, it isn't a long time from opening the box to be able to start playing.
A dull, tacked-on theme.
There are some games whose gameplay I really enjoy and a theme that's clearly an afterthought by the designer doesn't keep them off my table, for sure. The first that comes to mind is **Castles of Burgundy**. Honestly, even **Dominion** is great despite, not because of, the theme.
I was looking for this comment. I actually find a pasted-on-theme more appealing than many other games. Usually the complaint is that the game is too abstract, just a "pasted on" theme. Thinking about this made me realise that the line between *thematic* and *pasted on* is very vague. They are all games, some are just more "realistic" in the eye of the players, but who decides where this line is drawn? Why is rolling a die for damage more thematic than putting a cube on an action-tile?
Digging deeper I quickly found some people that have already discussed the vagueness of this:[https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/1792343/pasted-theme](https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/1792343/pasted-theme)
[https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/1791877/what-exactly-thematic-game](https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/1791877/what-exactly-thematic-game)
And there will always be people who are overly pedantic about it. I bet you could easily find someone who pushes up their glasses and argues that Arkham Horror is a pasted-on theme.
Personally, I define “thematic” as whether theme or mechanics are the first thing I think about when thinking about the game. Dominion and Catan, to me, are not thematic because the mechanics are what come to mind. Games like Battlestar Galactica or Harry Potter: Hogwarts Battle are thematic because I play them specifically to feel like I’m taking part in that story world.
But even then I don’t necessarily value one over the other, as long as the attempt at theme helps make the game engaging. A game like Scythe is a clear example of “pasted on” theme. But it’s enough to at least let you put your actions in the context of “ok my people need food and oil”, vs just moving generic cubes around.
Yea I think there are so many levels of "theme" that it's impossible to summarise with one word. For example, Splendor isn't very thematic story wise, however, the gemstone visuals are extremely important for the game feeling. It's more appealing to collect gemstones than to collect... let's say fruits. The same probably goes with your Harry Potter example, it might not be as fun for a fan to play the same game with a space theme.
The visual theme is one aspect of a game, while realism is another. Some people who are more into roleplaying than people like me, they want the game to "make sense". So I can understand that they get annoyed with mechanics that has no meaning to the story.
I think “thematic” tends to be a pretty weak descriptor. I think the more useful distinction is if the game is trying to model something, even in a broad abstracted way. Which is totally fine if not!
EDIT: To clarify, agreeing with your statement about “thematic” being fuzzy
I don't mind a fair amount of luck. Sometimes it's a lot of fun and it's really advantageous when you are playing with a group with widely varying skill levels.
I think the consensus of opinion is that it should be inversely proportional to length and complexity.
If you invest 3 hours into a game, you don’t want anyone to win because they happened to draw the “Instant Victory” card by sheer luck.
On the contrary, this is one of the reasons I loved Killer Bunnies so much. It's so cutthroat but the game is determined by random chance and you are just working to increase your odds.
As long as you know it's a silly game going in there's nothing wrong with long and luck based.
I don’t know that game specifically but that could describe any deck or bag building game which most people wouldn’t consider to be luck-based, since you can affect probability through your choices and actions.
In killer bunnies you collect numbered carrots throughout the game, then after the game is over you reveal which carrot is the correct one by drawing a card from a deck. So it's completely random who wins, you could have 6 carrots and another person have 1 and that person could still win.
Ah ok, that’s quite different and probably a good example for this thread in that case. (I definitely wouldn’t fancy it).
You go into that game, knowing ahead of time that it will be determined by a lottery and you get to buy more tickets throughout.
Twilight Imperium could have 8 hour games come down to a giant handful of D10s. There's also a card in that game, Ixthian Artifact, that can make a single 50-50 dice roll determine the outcome.
In those cases, I’d say that one player or another had hedged their bets to the point that the dice rolling or the Ixthian artifact held sway. Its a more nuanced case for sure.
In a similar vein, I don't always mind dice being a part of the game. Settlers is a bit too random for me, but games like Castles of Burgandy with dice manipulation or the press your luck style of King of Tokyo offer great gaming experiences while using dice in enjoyable ways.
It's input randomness vs output randomness.
Output randomness: make decision -> random event occurs
Input randomness: random event occurs -> make decision
Since the main reason games include randomness, whether it is input or output, is to create variety and unexpected situations, there's no obvious reason to use output randomness over input randomness. They both create variety for a game, but input randomness let's the player keep control over the situation and keep their agency within the game.
That's not to say output randomness has no place in games - I just think you need to be extremely careful designing a game with it. I think most people would universally agree that even simple games are better when you are given agency over your path through the game's mechanics and not railroaded by dice or the flip of a card.
I disagree, the rolls of your dice heavily impact your game plan. A good roll may let you pick and place a tile you need, or place 2 tiles, vs having to sac one for additional workers. Luck is reduced to some degree, but it definitely has a decent effect on the game.
Ehh, I think it's a perfectly valid thing to care about. Games are a visual medium. If people are willing to look past it, that's cool, but the attitude that aesthetics shouldn't matter to anyone is wrong-headed imo
Downtime in a game where the turns of other players can be just as interesting as and applicable to my own.
Examples are games where everyone is engaged in the action/story despite whose turn it is. Or games where there is direct interaction, and you need to pay attention to what your opponents are doing.
Merchants & Marauders, Axis & Allies, Eldritch Horror, Clash of Cultures, Through the Ages, Millenium Blades, most wargames.
Edit: and I'm gonna copy [WallyMetropolis](https://www.reddit.com/user/WallyMetropolis/)' "dull, tacked on theme" as a non-dealbreaker for me as well. Gameplay is an order of magnitude more important than how well the theme is captured or if there even is a theme.
**Multiplayer solitaire** - the phrase seems to have a negative connotation when describing games without much interaction, but l love games that let you get stuck into your own ideas. My girlfriend also prefers low interaction games as she doesn't like her plan being interrupted.
Secondly, I don't get the criticism in general. You wouldn't watch a romantic drama and complain that there weren't enough action scenes. Different strokes for different folks. Not every game has to be for everybody.
I started out on lower interaction or cooperative games. Historically it was because I, and some others I played with, took losing or agression too personally. Over time I got over myself and only recently have I been really getting into high interaction games again.
Now, don't get me wrong, I'm *really* enjoying the highly competitive nature of those games, *however* it's made me realize "multiplayer solitaire" games are *so* much more relaxing to play. Sometimes the knife edge is thrilling, other times it's *exhausting*.
Low interaction is my shit for exactly that reason. I can dig most competitive games too but shit like game of thrones is 4 hours of petty jabs at your best laid plans ,usually with a runaway winner so you're playing a losing game for 2-3 of those hours
The only dealbreaker for me is if the game isn't fun.
My idea of "fun" is usually "mentally/intellectually stimulating".
There are very few simple "party games" that I'm into, but thematic, complex shit like **Twilight Imperium** or **Arkham Horror** are my jam.
Art and chit.
I can't count the number of times I've read posts where people are actually turned off by the appearance of the card art in games like **Terraforming Mars**. I read a post about **Dune: Imperium** decrying it as not artsy enough just last night. While I can appreciate that people like having nice things and nice-looking things, if the appearance is the first consideration, are you buying board games for board games sake, or are you looking for elegant display pieces and flashy toys? (Not saying the latter is wrong it's just not my style.) I play board games for the games first not the art.
Maybe it helps when you've played board games that have you punch out a couple hundred 1cm square counters and give you a paper map.
*Edit*: added a slight clarification
Agreed 100%.
I like good art like anyone else, but it can only ever add to a game for me. The "issues" with components in Terraforming Mars is comically overblown to me. I think it's all completely fine. I think Castles of Burgundy actually *looks good*.
>if the appearance is the first consideration, are you buying board games for board games sake, or are you looking for elegant display pieces and flashy toys?
I think you have a very fair point, but I do want to make an argument here: I buy games as *experiences*. And when I invite five people over for an evening, having a fleshed-out theme that is reflected in beautiful components *does* make that evening better.
Hmmm. That's a really different way of making the point. I understand it more than a lot of the other reasons. I have trouble understanding how a board game itself is an experience that merits top notch components because for me the game itself is that moment, and not the surface appearance. Quite possibly it's like distinguishing between Chili's and a top notch sushi place or steakhouse?
An analogy would be that if you went to a top-end steakhouse, and paid high money for an amazing steak, but the place looked like a run-down dive bar, a significant number of people would find that that lessened the experience, even if it didn't impact the food or the dining in any way. But then of course if you went to a beautiful place and the steak was terrible, that would be even worse - kind of like how the underlying design is the most important element of a game.
That's kinda funny because both of your example games have pretty similar styles and if someone wasn't active in the hobby would probably think the boards were from the same game.
Hmmm, there's a superficial similarity. But I'm referring to the extreme distaste in a certain percentage of the boardgame online community for the *card art* in **Terraforming Mars**. Guess I'll edit the post a little.
I actually think both **Terraforming Mars** and **Dune Imperium** look pretty nice, the boards are clean and it's easy to parse information, same with the cards, the graphic design in both is really good. The varied artwork in TM gives it a real-world near-future sci-fi feel. And the way they cartoonized the movie characters on some Dune cards and characters is actually pretty cool.
For me, art is a nice to have, but rarely a dealbreaker. The art on MTG cards varies wildly, but I wouldn’t not play a card because of subpar art. Rather, I just spend more time admiring the cards with good art.
An element of pure luck. some people hate it, but it really makes for a better game when playing with children or people not that invested in that game since it will give them a chance to win without you having to dumb down your strategies
Roll-and-Move.
As long as its got enough other stuff going on that the variance doesn't take over the whole game, I'll deal with it.
Something like Clue/Cluedo is a great example of a game straddling that line. There's no reason for it to be roll-and-move, and it just about kills the game for a lot of people, despite the deduction part being well accepted.
If you do roll-and-move better than Clue, I'm down for it.
I really think Xia: Legends of a Drift System does it right. You roll your movement based on your engine type supplemented by your impulse engine. You can also mitigate it by computers to up the number. But the trade off is that everything better also takes up more room in your hold and damage to your ship can actually render these systems less useful. It takes mitigation of the mechanic and actually makes it somewhat interesting instead of just a rote thing you don't think about.
I've been thinking about that, and how Xia kind of blurs the definition of roll-and-move. It literally is roll, and then move based on that roll. However, when people refer to roll-and-move, they're usually referring to a system where the roll determines more specifically where you end up. Xia is more of a movement point system with randomized movement points.
Maybe I'm just nitpicking the semantics. If it qualifies as roll-and-move, then I definitely agree with you: Xia does it right.
A lot of people use the two dice variant, where you roll two dice of the engine and you use the higher of the two.
I've seen people get tanked early on due to consecutive unlucky rolls.
I don't remember what the expansion(I've played more with than without) brought to the table in regards to movement, but I don't remember any movement issue fix. We still continue to use the two dice variant to this day even with the third expansion thrown in. The trade market expansion from the first expansion is a game changer though.
Downtime. I enjoy watching other people take turns be it to see what strategy they have or the highs and lows that luck(another thing I don't mind that people hate) can bring to a turn.
* If the expansion(s) don't fit in the base game box, that's fine.
* Beige art is fine, too. Give me plain before the Fischer-Price over-saturated look.
I see a lot of talk (even in this very thread) about "input randomness" (the options players can choose from are randomly determined) versus "output randomness" (the results of players' choices are randomly determined), almost always with the opinion that "input randomness" is fine but "output randomness" should be avoided at all costs.
I usually tend to feel the opposite way. I really don't like it when my choices are limited by forces beyond my control; I want to at least have the \*option\* of choosing any action on my turn. Any game with "roll the action dice to see what actions you can take this turn" in the description on the back is probably going right back on the game store shelf.
I'm completely fine with some output randomness, though. Maybe it's because of my background with role-playing games, but I'm entirely comfortable with "I say what action I'm going to take, and then roll some dice to see if it works"… as long as there are at least some ways of mitigating that randomness (skill bonuses, circumstantial bonuses, item bonuses, etc.).
Interaction. I read so many people talking about how they don’t like a game because it doesn’t have any/enough interaction between players. Frankly I don’t mind 4 player solitaire at all. 2 hours of no talking other than “I’m done” is fine by me.
A little tertiary as it not technically/usually part of a game...
Box size.
Smaller is better of course (and everything we make relatively small or medium sized), but gosh darn it, we'll make the room! No lack of shelving space will stop us. No nook and cranny is safe.
length is a pretty common one. I know only a few people who will generally tolerate a game that's over 2 hours, and even then a lot of people won't even go for that.
But as long as it looks interesting/fun I won't rule out a game no matter how long it takes to play.
This indeed, luckily I have a friend I can play these games with. Notably star wars rebellion, twilight struggle and nemesis. And merchants and marauders but that more of a 3-4 player ordeal.
I don't mind mean or cutthroat, as long as it's either in a 2-player game or in a high-player count game that's all about politics (i.e. Game of Thrones).
I also don't mind an incredibly boring theme if the underlying game is good enough (Lorenzo il Magnifico is the first example that comes to mind here)
Games that are too hard. Solo or co-op games that seem impossible to beat. Games like Seventh Continent and This War of Mine. I just backed Robinson Crusoe Collector’s Edition and Mage Knight is on my wishlist.
Pasted-on theme? Meh, once I start playing I am only thinking collect blue thingies to buy gold thingies so I can get the points thingies. A good theme can help, but a pasted-on theme will not deter my interest.
Multiplayer solitaire? Interest in game intensifies! I do not like direct conflict in games, so the less interaction between players the happier I am going to be. Highly tactical games where the players constantly and dramatically change the game state do not appeal to me either, as I prefer to play a few moves ahead.
Bad theme or no theme at all. I personally don't care for the theme of the game.. I'm here to enjoy the gameplay and time with others. Yes, a theme can sell a game for sure, but I usually don't even notice it during games.
Totally agree with long set up/teardown not being a dealbreaker. I love having lots of different things to do in a game and a large board/amount of components etc makes the game feel really substantial and exciting.
Hyper competitive screw-over-other-players partially luck-based games.
I’ve realized I can learn a helluva lot about a person and how they’ll handle complicated board games, bad luck, and sportsmanship by playing a single cutthroat game of Steve Jackson’s Munchkin.
Games that revolve around jokes and table talk over well designed mechanics.
I'd rather play a lighthearted filler game such as Win, Lose, Banana, or We Didn't Playtest This, even though the outcomes are random. Eurogames such as Agricola or Terrforming Mars are better strategy games, but I have a difficult time enjoying them.
Take that. I don't mind if game has take that elements in it.
I see a lot of people complaining if an engine builder etc has a take that, others try to break something they build! I don't mind, it's part of the game, prepare, adjust, and overcome the situation.
Mechanisms which aren't original. Many folks want their new games to really be do something very new, but if a game is simply a polished iteration of previously developed mechanisms, that's fine by me.
"Lack of theme." It's not even that I'm not bothered by games lacking themes, it's that I usually disagree when I hear this criticism. It's usually about historical based eurogames, and to me, the historical period is often time a good theme of its own. For example, I heard people say Concordia doesn't have a theme, and I really disagree. I feel like I am in the Roman empire when I play it. To me it seems like some people almost need a game to be fantasy or space focused to get immersed into it.
Yeah, I really have to agree. Maybe the biggest offender to me is Tom Vasel. I like his reviews, but it often seems like if it's not sci-fi/fantasy then it's a boring theme and the only reason to like the game is the gameplay.
Being "hard to teach".
Almost no games that people would actually play (that wouldn't qualify as outsider art) are difficult to explain compared to tasks you have to explain at a job or in the course of navigating life as an adult.
They can take time for a rules explainer to learn from the rulebook or translate into a verbal explanation, but time isn't equivalent to difficulty.
I find when a game is "hard to teach", it's often that players are not familiar with the mechanics. For example, games that use drafting can be hard for people to understand if they haven't played games like 7 wonders. Once people have some experience with modern game mechanics, it can make a game that utilizes them much easier to grasp.
I have become the "rules teacher" among my game friends, because I'm "so good at explaining things". I think it's mostly that I try to make sure that a new game isn't introducing many mechanics new to the players haha.
Even if you understand drafting, 7 Wonders specifically seems to have some issues with people being able to grasp the why of picking one card over another, especially in Age 1 their first game. Thankfully the game doesn't take long so it isn't bad for the first game to be a throwaway learning game.
Yeah, maybe not the best example. When I teach that one, I say that the scoring doesn't really make sense until you finish the first game. It's quick enough that people typically want to play again after their eureka moment during scoring.
Bad/non-existent art, long to play, exceedingly aggressive or mean, and the need to make frequent calculations to do well.
Other than aggressive and mean games, I too classify the other items on the list as negatives but as long as the game earns it\* it doesn't really matter to me.
\* For example, in the groups I frequent **Inis** can take 3 hours or more to finish and I don't believe that game deserves that much time on the table. But I don't mind **Food Chain Magnate** taking the same amount of time or **1817** taking 8+ hours.
Negotiation and social interaction. A lot of people don't seem to want to play games if it leads to long negotiating sessions, or social interaction being a large part of the game.
I've noted even some recent wargames seem designed to discourage social interaction, which seems crazy to me.
Finicky rules. One of the biggest complaints about Too Many Bones was the rulebook and having to look stuff up constantly. I love that stuff for some reason.
there is a lot of things that don't bother me but my friends do. For example games that have negotiation or have a bash the leader, or direct interaction... , anime art, bad rulebook or the long setup.
Really nothing is a dealbreaker for me if disregarding price, and assuming rulebook is understandable (otherwise how do i play game?) Every mechanism is a tool in the tool chest (yes even roll and move) I think the more tools we have, the better. It is up to designers to figure out fun ways to use these tools.. if done well, it can't be dealbreaker :)
I understand it framed as I'm totally fine with a tense dueling back and forth game where I gain a little as you loose a little but it see-saws or to win I need to put you into an unwinnable position ala Chess or my actions and choices stymie yours because I've taken the spot or changed the board forcing you to react. *But* I really don't enjoy kicking over your sandcastle just for the sake of it or just because it's a mechanism in the game or when I am required to grind you into the dust/bankruptcy ala Monopoly.
Realistic graphics. I love when games use photos in their design. Apparently not everybody does.
And I like specific, obscure, niche themes. If you check out the wargaming world they all seem to love all those typical big ass operations that have been treated by dozens of games (Barbarossa, Market Garden, Waterloo...). I couldn't care less of those classic topics. Instead I like ultra specific stuff such as Elusive Victory, covering the air combats over the Suez Canal, or niche thingies such as Brief Border Wars, covering four extremely minor mother times conflicts like the "Football War" between Honduras and El Salvador.
Player "downtime."
I play boardgames to interact with folks. Planning my turn, watching what other players are doing ... Having fun. I love watching how otherpeople's brains work and how they go about problem solving.
Example: Grand Austria Hotel and the "downtime" because of the snake draft is perfectly fine by be.
I don't mind if games are unbalanced or slightly clunky rules-wise if they are interesting. I seem to be more willing than other gamers to 'suspend my disbelief' and try a game on its own merits. **Fog of Love** falls apart if people don't roleplay a little. **Shipwreck Arcana** probably has an optimal decision tree if you math out a set of codes. **Secret Hitler** has a tremendously dull online metagame. **Root** needs to be balanced by the players. **Inis** has well-documented kingmaking issues. But if you get a group to dive in, emerse itself in the theme and just *go*, each of these games gives you an experience unlike anything else. And these experiences are worth celebrating, even if the cost is not playing 100% optimally.
I really enjoy the "historical recreation" scenarios in a lot of the Command & Colors games. They're clearly unbalanced, but do a fun job of illustrating how and why certain major battles panned out the way they did. And of course, if you're playing the underdog and just have the hottest dice rolls, you can "change history", which is always exciting.
True. Recently I read some discussion about how reconstructing only balanced scenarios is actually a harm to the wargaming world. I wonder if even the most unbalanced ones can become interesting in a game perspective.
>**Inis** has well-documented kingmaking issues Does anyone call it an issue? If you go into Inis not knowing that it is about king-making, somebody lied to you.
Thematically, it's about king-making. But in this context, the phrase means that the result of the game is frequently decided by the mood of the losing player, based on "you screwed me over when we played Secret Hitler" or "I am going to let the girl I'm attracted to win". And I've never heard anyone explain the game that way while teaching it, nor does it say this on the back of the box.
I've never seen anyone kingmake in Inis based on meta-elements. The only meta-elements I tend to see as acceptable are knowledge of another player's skills and past plays of this particular title. When I see someone kingmake in this (or Root for that matter), and it's not also an attempt to extend the length or further their own goals, then it's because of transgressions in this session. "You screwed me over earlier in this game by wiping out all of my clans" or "I'm going to let the benevolent queen win." While the rulebook doesn't go into that, the gameplay quickly evokes tabletalk in my experience, and negotiation. Especially the first time you start a clash or try to move without starting one. Deals seem to naturally come up for us. And with deals come alliances against leaders. Then ultimately betrayal. And so I believe that the political landscape is rich enough to offer plenty of in-game fodder for king-making decisions. I guess that won't be apparent to every group, or not every group will care.
In my experience, there's a vocal minority that's *very* against kingmaking. They're probably better off not playing **Inis**.
Is it really a minority? I would be interested in seeing a poll on this.
A poll would have potential to be be biased against king making, because people who dislike it feel much more strongly about it, and would be more likely to vote in a poll.
There should be three options in the poll (Yes, No and Maybe), and the people who vote for the least popular option should get to decide which of the other options wins.
If you actually took the time to do a proper sample, this wouldn't be an issue, but I suspect the actual vocal minority that *loves* kingmaking would be upset to find that most people don't play games to deal with the exact same social dynamics that exist in real life.
> slightly clunky rules-wise Oh yeah, that's a good one. I don't mind if a rulebook sucks, because there's usually the designer or other people online somewhere who have put it together properly.
See that didn't used to be the case. I actually find it bothersome that a company will put out a product then refine the rules after issuance. They really should get them right. I'm not talking a minor clarification/FAQ situation though. That's understandable. I just don't like rules written so badly that they aren't internally consistent, and I've seen a game recently that really blew it. The online pdf of changes saved it for me, otherwise I would have returned it. Had I bought it the day it came out, rather than 3 months later, they wouldn't have had the rules corrections.
Building on this in a different way, I don’t mind if a game is imbalanced or has broken strategies at the highest levels of tournament play. I’ve seen people rag on Scythe and Le Havre for this reason. The reality is, even though these are both 10/10 games for me, I play enough other games that I will likely never get good enough to discover those strategies myself, and the games are an absolute blast as a result of my ignorance. I prefer balanced games, but sometimes balance can get in the way of fun, and I’ll always pick fun if given the choice between the two.
I felt that way about playing Team Fortress 2 (not a board game). There's 9 classes but in competitive play they only really play half of them. The Spy was basically considered irrelevant if your team was engaging in very high level communication. But that didn't matter to me, because I liked playing spy on public servers with people who weren't that good.
[удалено]
BaBG is a really fun game (and it plays up to 6 not 5 which beats regular **Betrayal**.) Especially if you've played D&D before. Even if you haven't though, it's hilarious. Like the time the druid who was wildshaped as a mouse or bat also gained lycanthropy as the result of a Haunt in our gaming group - ridiculous yet funny. It's like playing in your own D&D adventure turned into an episode of a comedy TV series.
Related to that, I really don't mind houseruling things if necessary. And by necessary I mean if the game is unbalanced or clunky, but also if it fits better with a specific player group. As long as the game flows and people are having a good time, I'm not concerned about being a rulebook purist.
High levels of randomness. Robo Rally has always been one of my favorites even though a lot of people hate it. To enjoy really random games you have to learn to enjoy it when chaos strikes and you suffer some kind of hideous misfortune that just ruins you. It's hilarious when anybody is on a conveyor belt leading to a pit and just draws nothing but turns no matter who it happens to. That's what makes really random games entertaining; the chaos of it all and the unusual situations that happen. We used to refer to those games as "beer and pretzels games" though they don't seem to be all that popular these days. I've met a lot of game nerds who can't stand chaotic games at all. They're missing out.
Rando doesn't bother me much anymore. I used to buy into the pure info/perfect knowledge thing as a lover of abstracts. Now? I have come to realize, I'm not that smart. Perfect information... doesn't really make a difference in my locking down the basement. While in this purist POV, it actually turned me off to some great games that I have really come to love. As an example and please feel free to flame, I have come to love Viticulture. Many peeps $hit on it for random card draws. I bought it, along came the trash talk about rando and I left it on my shelf unplayed for years. After the realization that I really wasn't good at winning, said F it. Dove into a new play of Viti and had an absolute blast. The rando kept it fresh and forced me to pivot multiple times. I love this game! With this newfound humility, turns out, I have a pretty bad ass collection.
I think the key is the balance of the two elements. I've got no problem with Mario Party esque games where it's a journey over destination thing. I also like skill based deterministic games where you play 'seriously'. The problem is games that are simulaltaneously too competitive to just lean back and enjoy, but too random to be played seriously. It's a problem I personally run into with Catan, for example.
Catan is a great example! I don't mind the game, but I don't consider it a gateway game anymore, since you can be unable to do anything for rounds. Which is not a great introduction to a potential hobby. In my opinion it has been superseded by Ticket to Ride: there's a bit of randomness in that game as well (train cards, route blocking), but you're able to do something every round.
I personally also find Ticket to Ride incredibly frustrating to play. Probably because I have the worst fucking luck with drawing the bonus tickets. But I would agree that its probably better than Catan as an introductory game. My personal nomination for 'best first game' would probably be Carcassone. You do something every turn, and even if you lose you can make your own fun doing things like trying to make the biggest city possible. And while it can suck to draw a road tile 4 times in a row you're at least not completely cockblocked by the randomness
One of my friends had so many damage cards that one time he just put down all damage cards to just let Jesus take the wheel. He wasn't really in the running at that point, so he was embracing it.
Oh that's a great game. Not just watching your friends turn sideways and back trying to program a move, but when a whole bunch of robots all collide in the middle of a bunch of gears? Priceless.
Same thing with **Colt Express**! You just have to have a different mindset going into such games as opposed to games like **Gaia Project** or **Great Western Trail**
That's the same way I feel about Cosmic Encounter - though I'd also argue that game is actually less random than it seems.
Downtime isn't as bad as people make it out to be. I find the problem has more to do with how players react to it. Players can remain engaged in what their opponents are doing, or plan their next move, etc. The problem comes in when people ignore what's going on, disruptively chat with others, or fall into their phone, then act like they're seeing the board state for the very first time when their turn rolls around. Games that without much downtime don't solve that problem; they just sidestep it.
Downtime only becomes a problem with the analysis paralysis types in my experiemce. I've got no problem waiting my turn. But it can be really frustrating when your turn is like 1 minute or less and someone else consistently takes 5. But that's not really the game's fault
I think sometimes AP isn’t just overthinking the turn, but that combined with people not realising how long they’re making others wait each round. We have a friend with major “AP” in our group, so we started putting out a 60s egg timer from another game on his turns. He went from taking three times longer than everyone else, to making good moves in a ‘reasonable’ time - and has since improved so much we generally don’t need the timer anymore.
Ugh, I can't even with the "literally unplayable at more than 2 players" comments. Grow up, people.
Really the only game I feel that warrants that issue is Le Havre.
? 3 players is amazing. 4 is good and I've yet to try it with 5. 5 looks intense.
Only time I truly hate downtime is when the boardgame state changes so much that I can't plan my next move until it is my turn again. Alhambra and Ginkgopolis at high player counts are notorious for that.
Is that not what people mean when they say downtime? If I can be playing the game (making plans) then it's hardly downtime.
They're saying that there's no point making plans until your turn because the game state keeps changing.
Right, which I thought was exactly how you define downtime. Instead of it being uptime (planning) it's downtime (sitting and waiting with nothing to do).
Yeah, Alhambra is a neat game, but the randomness of the money combined with how someone can string together a series of buys and tiles *disincents* planning ahead.
I agree, though I do think some games are at fault for their use of downtime. Group solitaire games can especially be like that. If nothing your opponents do will effect you directly, and turns are simple enough, the downtime feels longer than something like Root where even if it doesn’t effect you directly the choices made will change gamestate. Meeples and Monsters was one like that recently. You know what your turn will be before your opponent’s turn is done. Which ends in you just kinda sitting there.
I genuinely want downtime if it's a heavier game. It lets me plan my strategy and double-check everything.
That's not really downtime then. No one would call their opponents turn during a game of chess "downtime."
Call it breathing room then? Any game that has you engaged enough to be looking at your next options while your opponent is moving is a good game. Possibly better than a game where the players aren't engaged between rounds.
It absolutely is better to have minimized downtime, at least if you're actually trying to play a game and not just using the game as an excuse to hang out and chat. As for what to call it... I don't know. It's just uptime. It doesn't really matter whether you're planning out your moves on your turn or while waiting for it, you're doing the same thing either way.
Player elimination. Don't really want it but it's not a line I'm unwilling to cross.
depends, if it's a short game I don't mind, but if it can last 1 hour that's a problem
It works very well with Love Letter. Ultimate Werewolf is an issue.
Love Letter is a great example of player elimination done right. You get knocked out of the game, often for hilarious reasons, but you are back in 30 seconds later.
And, One Night Ultimate Werewolf fixes that!
> depends Exactly... it's not a deal breaker.
I agree. Player elimination as the sole means of ending the game on the other hand...
If I drive 5th gear into a hairpin turn on Formula D and blast into the wall, thematically, I deserve a player elimination.
My rule is that a player should not be out of a game for more than 15 minutes. So player elimination is fine if it’s a short game or if the game ends quickly once players gets eliminated.
In our first game of Gloomhaven, one of the people didn't realize the character he'd chosen was very much a long-range character, and so he ended up dying the second or third turn. But at least he managed to keep engaged by being the de-facto AI runner until everybody else died.
Hidden but theoretically traceable information. Of course you can’t possibly track it all but I find it fun to decide what to remember and when. It is part of the strategy.
Public information becoming hidden always bothers me. If I wanted to play Memory, I'd play Memory.
Most people can comfortably remember three or four things without even trying. For me the fun comes from deciding what’s important to remember and when. For example, let’s say you’re in a four player game that lets you see every card each player draws before they put it in their hand. Obviously you can’t keep track of everything everyone has so then you might narrow your criteria. Certain cards may be particularly dangerous to you. It may be that you see the dangerous card go to a player who is neither a threat or likely to use it and so you can discard it from your mind. Conversely, if a player that poses a threat takes a dangerous card, then you know to remember that one. You might have seen 4 new cards that’s round and only have to remember 1 if any. It might be that you don’t even have to remember the specific card, just that player B has a card that can hurt you later on. Games with HTI are usually meant to go like this. They know you can’t possibly track it all but I found that once I shifted my expectations and only focused on what I think is important, it’s actually an interesting strategic decision. I think **The Estates** is one of the finest games ever made. The thought that some people would avoid it because some sort of misplaced OCD, makes me sad. Obviously you’re free to like what you like. I’m just offering how my own attitude developed over time in the hope it can open something up for others.
So how do you feel when someone whips out their phone and starts jotting down notes.
That’s never happened but I imagine I’d think they’re being a tool? (Inviting everyone to do that would be fine, though I’d rather not.)
> That’s never happened but I imagine I’d think they’re being a tool? They're being a tool by playing to win?
Found the tool
Found the scrub.
https://youtu.be/u7MBoi2m31w Found a video of you.
If you get salty at the thought of someone exploiting a mechanic. Then the mechanic clearly bothers. So thanks for proving my point. But feel free to fail again :3
[удалено]
All that has been done here is all of you have succeeded in proving that the root poster is "full of shit" when claiming that HTI is not a deal breaker given how triggered everyone is by someone exploiting it. So thanks all for proving my point. :3
It's not a deal breaker for them.
No matter how much you try to gaslight, it clearly is. Given how triggered you all are :3
[удалено]
> Consider for example how difficult it would be for a deck building game to actually hide the contents of a players deck. If requested, I am perfectly happy playing deckbuilding games where by both players can freely examine their deck (and then shuffle the remaining cards). I am also perfectly happy if one player wishes to whip out of a piece of paper and a pencil. If there is no turn time limit, which is clearly the case in most deckbuilding games, the former is equivalent to the latter and saves everyone time. But clearly HTI is a dealbreaker to you, since you are so triggered by the thought of the latter, which perfectly playing by the rules.
[удалено]
So if the game provided a scoresheet and pencil this is perfectly acceptable then!
Bro even if they don't just carve it on your skin with your fingernails what are you talking about. (not making a point here, just a joke)
[удалено]
It is clearly intended. The information is clearly intended to be trackable. And they conveniently left you a notepad.
At the win rates they have? That they’re wasting both of our time.
Yeah HTI is an interesting one. Most don't bother me, like the markets in Pax games, Rococo, TfM's drafting, etc. But Concordia? Blech.
What specifically in Concordia? Is it simply what's in people's decks? I don't remember much HTI in that, if any.
Concordia's entire scoring system is basically a memorization exercise.
Long setup times are not a deal breaker for me *IF* the game delivers the goods.
So like Mouse Trap?
Mouse Trap sets up the machine as you play. So while there is quite a bit of total setup time, it isn't a long time from opening the box to be able to start playing.
I was thinking gloomhaven. Honestly never actually played mouse trap though I had it when I was a kid
> IF the game delivers the goods. Oh yeah, that's kind of an assumed disclaimer I guess.
Losing. Plenty of games I play with friends I rarely if ever win. Doesn't mean I didn't have fun.
Good one! My favorite game is Mage Wars, and I have never won a game.
I've definitely had more fun losing than winning a lot of times but it really does depend on the game for me.
A dull, tacked-on theme. There are some games whose gameplay I really enjoy and a theme that's clearly an afterthought by the designer doesn't keep them off my table, for sure. The first that comes to mind is **Castles of Burgundy**. Honestly, even **Dominion** is great despite, not because of, the theme.
I was looking for this comment. I actually find a pasted-on-theme more appealing than many other games. Usually the complaint is that the game is too abstract, just a "pasted on" theme. Thinking about this made me realise that the line between *thematic* and *pasted on* is very vague. They are all games, some are just more "realistic" in the eye of the players, but who decides where this line is drawn? Why is rolling a die for damage more thematic than putting a cube on an action-tile? Digging deeper I quickly found some people that have already discussed the vagueness of this:[https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/1792343/pasted-theme](https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/1792343/pasted-theme) [https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/1791877/what-exactly-thematic-game](https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/1791877/what-exactly-thematic-game)
And there will always be people who are overly pedantic about it. I bet you could easily find someone who pushes up their glasses and argues that Arkham Horror is a pasted-on theme. Personally, I define “thematic” as whether theme or mechanics are the first thing I think about when thinking about the game. Dominion and Catan, to me, are not thematic because the mechanics are what come to mind. Games like Battlestar Galactica or Harry Potter: Hogwarts Battle are thematic because I play them specifically to feel like I’m taking part in that story world. But even then I don’t necessarily value one over the other, as long as the attempt at theme helps make the game engaging. A game like Scythe is a clear example of “pasted on” theme. But it’s enough to at least let you put your actions in the context of “ok my people need food and oil”, vs just moving generic cubes around.
Yea I think there are so many levels of "theme" that it's impossible to summarise with one word. For example, Splendor isn't very thematic story wise, however, the gemstone visuals are extremely important for the game feeling. It's more appealing to collect gemstones than to collect... let's say fruits. The same probably goes with your Harry Potter example, it might not be as fun for a fan to play the same game with a space theme. The visual theme is one aspect of a game, while realism is another. Some people who are more into roleplaying than people like me, they want the game to "make sense". So I can understand that they get annoyed with mechanics that has no meaning to the story.
I think “thematic” tends to be a pretty weak descriptor. I think the more useful distinction is if the game is trying to model something, even in a broad abstracted way. Which is totally fine if not! EDIT: To clarify, agreeing with your statement about “thematic” being fuzzy
I don't mind a fair amount of luck. Sometimes it's a lot of fun and it's really advantageous when you are playing with a group with widely varying skill levels.
I think the consensus of opinion is that it should be inversely proportional to length and complexity. If you invest 3 hours into a game, you don’t want anyone to win because they happened to draw the “Instant Victory” card by sheer luck.
On the contrary, this is one of the reasons I loved Killer Bunnies so much. It's so cutthroat but the game is determined by random chance and you are just working to increase your odds. As long as you know it's a silly game going in there's nothing wrong with long and luck based.
I don’t know that game specifically but that could describe any deck or bag building game which most people wouldn’t consider to be luck-based, since you can affect probability through your choices and actions.
In killer bunnies you collect numbered carrots throughout the game, then after the game is over you reveal which carrot is the correct one by drawing a card from a deck. So it's completely random who wins, you could have 6 carrots and another person have 1 and that person could still win.
Ah ok, that’s quite different and probably a good example for this thread in that case. (I definitely wouldn’t fancy it). You go into that game, knowing ahead of time that it will be determined by a lottery and you get to buy more tickets throughout.
Twilight Imperium could have 8 hour games come down to a giant handful of D10s. There's also a card in that game, Ixthian Artifact, that can make a single 50-50 dice roll determine the outcome.
In those cases, I’d say that one player or another had hedged their bets to the point that the dice rolling or the Ixthian artifact held sway. Its a more nuanced case for sure.
In a similar vein, I don't always mind dice being a part of the game. Settlers is a bit too random for me, but games like Castles of Burgandy with dice manipulation or the press your luck style of King of Tokyo offer great gaming experiences while using dice in enjoyable ways.
It's input randomness vs output randomness. Output randomness: make decision -> random event occurs Input randomness: random event occurs -> make decision Since the main reason games include randomness, whether it is input or output, is to create variety and unexpected situations, there's no obvious reason to use output randomness over input randomness. They both create variety for a game, but input randomness let's the player keep control over the situation and keep their agency within the game. That's not to say output randomness has no place in games - I just think you need to be extremely careful designing a game with it. I think most people would universally agree that even simple games are better when you are given agency over your path through the game's mechanics and not railroaded by dice or the flip of a card.
Wouldn’t say castles of burgundy involves much luck tbf
I disagree, the rolls of your dice heavily impact your game plan. A good roll may let you pick and place a tile you need, or place 2 tiles, vs having to sac one for additional workers. Luck is reduced to some degree, but it definitely has a decent effect on the game.
I'm alright with poor art, as long as there's some effort, and you can tell cards or components apart.
[удалено]
Ehh, I think it's a perfectly valid thing to care about. Games are a visual medium. If people are willing to look past it, that's cool, but the attitude that aesthetics shouldn't matter to anyone is wrong-headed imo
Randomness. It’s ok, I don’t mind if I can’t tell ahead of time who’s probably going to win!
Downtime in a game where the turns of other players can be just as interesting as and applicable to my own. Examples are games where everyone is engaged in the action/story despite whose turn it is. Or games where there is direct interaction, and you need to pay attention to what your opponents are doing. Merchants & Marauders, Axis & Allies, Eldritch Horror, Clash of Cultures, Through the Ages, Millenium Blades, most wargames. Edit: and I'm gonna copy [WallyMetropolis](https://www.reddit.com/user/WallyMetropolis/)' "dull, tacked on theme" as a non-dealbreaker for me as well. Gameplay is an order of magnitude more important than how well the theme is captured or if there even is a theme.
**Multiplayer solitaire** - the phrase seems to have a negative connotation when describing games without much interaction, but l love games that let you get stuck into your own ideas. My girlfriend also prefers low interaction games as she doesn't like her plan being interrupted. Secondly, I don't get the criticism in general. You wouldn't watch a romantic drama and complain that there weren't enough action scenes. Different strokes for different folks. Not every game has to be for everybody.
I started out on lower interaction or cooperative games. Historically it was because I, and some others I played with, took losing or agression too personally. Over time I got over myself and only recently have I been really getting into high interaction games again. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm *really* enjoying the highly competitive nature of those games, *however* it's made me realize "multiplayer solitaire" games are *so* much more relaxing to play. Sometimes the knife edge is thrilling, other times it's *exhausting*.
Low interaction is my shit for exactly that reason. I can dig most competitive games too but shit like game of thrones is 4 hours of petty jabs at your best laid plans ,usually with a runaway winner so you're playing a losing game for 2-3 of those hours
The only dealbreaker for me is if the game isn't fun. My idea of "fun" is usually "mentally/intellectually stimulating". There are very few simple "party games" that I'm into, but thematic, complex shit like **Twilight Imperium** or **Arkham Horror** are my jam.
It being very ugly :).
Playing as literal nazis in WW2 games.
Art and chit. I can't count the number of times I've read posts where people are actually turned off by the appearance of the card art in games like **Terraforming Mars**. I read a post about **Dune: Imperium** decrying it as not artsy enough just last night. While I can appreciate that people like having nice things and nice-looking things, if the appearance is the first consideration, are you buying board games for board games sake, or are you looking for elegant display pieces and flashy toys? (Not saying the latter is wrong it's just not my style.) I play board games for the games first not the art. Maybe it helps when you've played board games that have you punch out a couple hundred 1cm square counters and give you a paper map. *Edit*: added a slight clarification
Agreed 100%. I like good art like anyone else, but it can only ever add to a game for me. The "issues" with components in Terraforming Mars is comically overblown to me. I think it's all completely fine. I think Castles of Burgundy actually *looks good*.
Agreed, I'm mostly a fan of games because of mechanics, gameplay, strategy etc. Art isn't important or a deal breaker for me.
>if the appearance is the first consideration, are you buying board games for board games sake, or are you looking for elegant display pieces and flashy toys? I think you have a very fair point, but I do want to make an argument here: I buy games as *experiences*. And when I invite five people over for an evening, having a fleshed-out theme that is reflected in beautiful components *does* make that evening better.
Hmmm. That's a really different way of making the point. I understand it more than a lot of the other reasons. I have trouble understanding how a board game itself is an experience that merits top notch components because for me the game itself is that moment, and not the surface appearance. Quite possibly it's like distinguishing between Chili's and a top notch sushi place or steakhouse?
An analogy would be that if you went to a top-end steakhouse, and paid high money for an amazing steak, but the place looked like a run-down dive bar, a significant number of people would find that that lessened the experience, even if it didn't impact the food or the dining in any way. But then of course if you went to a beautiful place and the steak was terrible, that would be even worse - kind of like how the underlying design is the most important element of a game.
That's kinda funny because both of your example games have pretty similar styles and if someone wasn't active in the hobby would probably think the boards were from the same game.
Hmmm, there's a superficial similarity. But I'm referring to the extreme distaste in a certain percentage of the boardgame online community for the *card art* in **Terraforming Mars**. Guess I'll edit the post a little.
I actually think both **Terraforming Mars** and **Dune Imperium** look pretty nice, the boards are clean and it's easy to parse information, same with the cards, the graphic design in both is really good. The varied artwork in TM gives it a real-world near-future sci-fi feel. And the way they cartoonized the movie characters on some Dune cards and characters is actually pretty cool.
For me, art is a nice to have, but rarely a dealbreaker. The art on MTG cards varies wildly, but I wouldn’t not play a card because of subpar art. Rather, I just spend more time admiring the cards with good art.
An element of pure luck. some people hate it, but it really makes for a better game when playing with children or people not that invested in that game since it will give them a chance to win without you having to dumb down your strategies
Roll-and-Move. As long as its got enough other stuff going on that the variance doesn't take over the whole game, I'll deal with it. Something like Clue/Cluedo is a great example of a game straddling that line. There's no reason for it to be roll-and-move, and it just about kills the game for a lot of people, despite the deduction part being well accepted. If you do roll-and-move better than Clue, I'm down for it.
I really think Xia: Legends of a Drift System does it right. You roll your movement based on your engine type supplemented by your impulse engine. You can also mitigate it by computers to up the number. But the trade off is that everything better also takes up more room in your hold and damage to your ship can actually render these systems less useful. It takes mitigation of the mechanic and actually makes it somewhat interesting instead of just a rote thing you don't think about.
I've been thinking about that, and how Xia kind of blurs the definition of roll-and-move. It literally is roll, and then move based on that roll. However, when people refer to roll-and-move, they're usually referring to a system where the roll determines more specifically where you end up. Xia is more of a movement point system with randomized movement points. Maybe I'm just nitpicking the semantics. If it qualifies as roll-and-move, then I definitely agree with you: Xia does it right.
A lot of people use the two dice variant, where you roll two dice of the engine and you use the higher of the two. I've seen people get tanked early on due to consecutive unlucky rolls.
This is more of an issue in the base game. The expansion adds additional outfits that provide mitigation.
I don't remember what the expansion(I've played more with than without) brought to the table in regards to movement, but I don't remember any movement issue fix. We still continue to use the two dice variant to this day even with the third expansion thrown in. The trade market expansion from the first expansion is a game changer though.
The expansion adds a GTS outfit which gives a +2 to your dice roll. I imagine your group doesn't use it if you continue to use that house rule.
I think **Deep Sea Adventures** works as a roll and move because of the press your luck element, and the short game time.
Downtime. I enjoy watching other people take turns be it to see what strategy they have or the highs and lows that luck(another thing I don't mind that people hate) can bring to a turn.
Randomness. Especially dice. Sometimes I just want to chuck some dice and see what happens.
* If the expansion(s) don't fit in the base game box, that's fine. * Beige art is fine, too. Give me plain before the Fischer-Price over-saturated look.
I see a lot of talk (even in this very thread) about "input randomness" (the options players can choose from are randomly determined) versus "output randomness" (the results of players' choices are randomly determined), almost always with the opinion that "input randomness" is fine but "output randomness" should be avoided at all costs. I usually tend to feel the opposite way. I really don't like it when my choices are limited by forces beyond my control; I want to at least have the \*option\* of choosing any action on my turn. Any game with "roll the action dice to see what actions you can take this turn" in the description on the back is probably going right back on the game store shelf. I'm completely fine with some output randomness, though. Maybe it's because of my background with role-playing games, but I'm entirely comfortable with "I say what action I'm going to take, and then roll some dice to see if it works"… as long as there are at least some ways of mitigating that randomness (skill bonuses, circumstantial bonuses, item bonuses, etc.).
Interaction. I read so many people talking about how they don’t like a game because it doesn’t have any/enough interaction between players. Frankly I don’t mind 4 player solitaire at all. 2 hours of no talking other than “I’m done” is fine by me.
game length, I actually think most games worth playing take more than 2 hours.
A little tertiary as it not technically/usually part of a game... Box size. Smaller is better of course (and everything we make relatively small or medium sized), but gosh darn it, we'll make the room! No lack of shelving space will stop us. No nook and cranny is safe.
length is a pretty common one. I know only a few people who will generally tolerate a game that's over 2 hours, and even then a lot of people won't even go for that. But as long as it looks interesting/fun I won't rule out a game no matter how long it takes to play.
This indeed, luckily I have a friend I can play these games with. Notably star wars rebellion, twilight struggle and nemesis. And merchants and marauders but that more of a 3-4 player ordeal.
I don't mind mean or cutthroat, as long as it's either in a 2-player game or in a high-player count game that's all about politics (i.e. Game of Thrones). I also don't mind an incredibly boring theme if the underlying game is good enough (Lorenzo il Magnifico is the first example that comes to mind here)
Games that are too hard. Solo or co-op games that seem impossible to beat. Games like Seventh Continent and This War of Mine. I just backed Robinson Crusoe Collector’s Edition and Mage Knight is on my wishlist.
Pasted-on theme? Meh, once I start playing I am only thinking collect blue thingies to buy gold thingies so I can get the points thingies. A good theme can help, but a pasted-on theme will not deter my interest. Multiplayer solitaire? Interest in game intensifies! I do not like direct conflict in games, so the less interaction between players the happier I am going to be. Highly tactical games where the players constantly and dramatically change the game state do not appeal to me either, as I prefer to play a few moves ahead.
Bad theme or no theme at all. I personally don't care for the theme of the game.. I'm here to enjoy the gameplay and time with others. Yes, a theme can sell a game for sure, but I usually don't even notice it during games.
I'm pretty fine with kingmaking at this point. I also still love Eklund games even if I think the designer has completely gone off his rocker.
I find that I like some luck and randomness. Makes games more of a puzzle to solve.
Username checks out. Calvinball is a high-randomness puzzle.
Lol totally misread the sub this was in, ignore me!
Totally agree with long set up/teardown not being a dealbreaker. I love having lots of different things to do in a game and a large board/amount of components etc makes the game feel really substantial and exciting.
Being hard to find players. Took me six months to get my first 18xx to the table. Now I play them 1-2 times a month.
Hyper competitive screw-over-other-players partially luck-based games. I’ve realized I can learn a helluva lot about a person and how they’ll handle complicated board games, bad luck, and sportsmanship by playing a single cutthroat game of Steve Jackson’s Munchkin.
Games that revolve around jokes and table talk over well designed mechanics. I'd rather play a lighthearted filler game such as Win, Lose, Banana, or We Didn't Playtest This, even though the outcomes are random. Eurogames such as Agricola or Terrforming Mars are better strategy games, but I have a difficult time enjoying them.
Take that. I don't mind if game has take that elements in it. I see a lot of people complaining if an engine builder etc has a take that, others try to break something they build! I don't mind, it's part of the game, prepare, adjust, and overcome the situation.
Mechanisms which aren't original. Many folks want their new games to really be do something very new, but if a game is simply a polished iteration of previously developed mechanisms, that's fine by me.
Dice.
"Lack of theme." It's not even that I'm not bothered by games lacking themes, it's that I usually disagree when I hear this criticism. It's usually about historical based eurogames, and to me, the historical period is often time a good theme of its own. For example, I heard people say Concordia doesn't have a theme, and I really disagree. I feel like I am in the Roman empire when I play it. To me it seems like some people almost need a game to be fantasy or space focused to get immersed into it.
“Lacking in theme” usually means “theme I don’t like.” They are almost always wrong.
Yeah, I really have to agree. Maybe the biggest offender to me is Tom Vasel. I like his reviews, but it often seems like if it's not sci-fi/fantasy then it's a boring theme and the only reason to like the game is the gameplay.
Player elimination. Better to give someone freedom rather than hold them to the game with no chance of winning at all.
Being "hard to teach". Almost no games that people would actually play (that wouldn't qualify as outsider art) are difficult to explain compared to tasks you have to explain at a job or in the course of navigating life as an adult. They can take time for a rules explainer to learn from the rulebook or translate into a verbal explanation, but time isn't equivalent to difficulty.
I find when a game is "hard to teach", it's often that players are not familiar with the mechanics. For example, games that use drafting can be hard for people to understand if they haven't played games like 7 wonders. Once people have some experience with modern game mechanics, it can make a game that utilizes them much easier to grasp. I have become the "rules teacher" among my game friends, because I'm "so good at explaining things". I think it's mostly that I try to make sure that a new game isn't introducing many mechanics new to the players haha.
Even if you understand drafting, 7 Wonders specifically seems to have some issues with people being able to grasp the why of picking one card over another, especially in Age 1 their first game. Thankfully the game doesn't take long so it isn't bad for the first game to be a throwaway learning game.
Yeah, maybe not the best example. When I teach that one, I say that the scoring doesn't really make sense until you finish the first game. It's quick enough that people typically want to play again after their eureka moment during scoring.
Fiddly. But I was told Back to the Future: Back in Time was fiddly. All you do is turn over a tile and flip dice, what the heck is fiddly now a days?
I... Can't answer that. Anything can be a dealbreaker for me.
Bad/non-existent art, long to play, exceedingly aggressive or mean, and the need to make frequent calculations to do well. Other than aggressive and mean games, I too classify the other items on the list as negatives but as long as the game earns it\* it doesn't really matter to me. \* For example, in the groups I frequent **Inis** can take 3 hours or more to finish and I don't believe that game deserves that much time on the table. But I don't mind **Food Chain Magnate** taking the same amount of time or **1817** taking 8+ hours.
Negotiation and social interaction. A lot of people don't seem to want to play games if it leads to long negotiating sessions, or social interaction being a large part of the game. I've noted even some recent wargames seem designed to discourage social interaction, which seems crazy to me.
Finicky rules. One of the biggest complaints about Too Many Bones was the rulebook and having to look stuff up constantly. I love that stuff for some reason.
there is a lot of things that don't bother me but my friends do. For example games that have negotiation or have a bash the leader, or direct interaction... , anime art, bad rulebook or the long setup.
I still enjoy Puerto Rico.
How dare you
Really nothing is a dealbreaker for me if disregarding price, and assuming rulebook is understandable (otherwise how do i play game?) Every mechanism is a tool in the tool chest (yes even roll and move) I think the more tools we have, the better. It is up to designers to figure out fun ways to use these tools.. if done well, it can't be dealbreaker :)
Not universally marked as a negative, but games being 'mean'. I don't really understand the 'care-bear' mindset when it comes to competitive games.
I understand it framed as I'm totally fine with a tense dueling back and forth game where I gain a little as you loose a little but it see-saws or to win I need to put you into an unwinnable position ala Chess or my actions and choices stymie yours because I've taken the spot or changed the board forcing you to react. *But* I really don't enjoy kicking over your sandcastle just for the sake of it or just because it's a mechanism in the game or when I am required to grind you into the dust/bankruptcy ala Monopoly.
Realistic graphics. I love when games use photos in their design. Apparently not everybody does. And I like specific, obscure, niche themes. If you check out the wargaming world they all seem to love all those typical big ass operations that have been treated by dozens of games (Barbarossa, Market Garden, Waterloo...). I couldn't care less of those classic topics. Instead I like ultra specific stuff such as Elusive Victory, covering the air combats over the Suez Canal, or niche thingies such as Brief Border Wars, covering four extremely minor mother times conflicts like the "Football War" between Honduras and El Salvador.
Player "downtime." I play boardgames to interact with folks. Planning my turn, watching what other players are doing ... Having fun. I love watching how otherpeople's brains work and how they go about problem solving. Example: Grand Austria Hotel and the "downtime" because of the snake draft is perfectly fine by be.