What BOARD GAME(s) have you been playing?

I played Scythe once. I was bored as hell and I hope I never play it again.

Sagrilarus wrote:

cdennett wrote:

Count Orlok wrote: I played my first game of Scythe. Unless I'm missing something, it was pretty standard middle of the road eurogame. Didn't see much conflict or interaction between players. I'd play it again, but I am not going to be clamoring for it. From what I was seeing online, people were arguing it gets more aggressive with experienced players. Is that the case? Not sure that would help with excitement, however.

No, I think you got it. On paper I should really like this game, but boy does it not click with me. It's simply not fun. Consequently just last night I handed over my collector's edition with lots of upgrades to my friend who didn't want me to sell it. Still haven't figured out how many lunches I'm going to make him buy me...

Believe it or not I've associated it emotionally with Nexus Ops, which is much simpler, much more straightforward, and much more fun. I appreciate that Nexus Ops is a whisper of a game compared to Scythe, but it has a spirit that Scythe didn't reveal when I played it. To some extent, Scythe feels like a game that's big for bigness' sake. I like some big games, games that seem to justify the biginess with a bigger play. But Scythe didn't hit me that way. I'll likely be playing a few more times as it's on heavy rotation with my group right now.

I'm concerned that Biginess is becoming an issue for a lot of new games (for me at least.) Kickstarter seems to nurture it, so I suppose I need to get used to it.

S.

I really don't think it's just you. I noticed it materializing during Arkham's expansion buildup and people wanting to play "The whole arkham experience" with all expansions. I guess because they believed more expansions, therefore, equals more fun, without realizing it is the thing that is killing the fun.

I was part of that for a brief time before I pulled my head out of my ass.

It also seems to be the direction where euros are headed. Convoluted paths to make you feel clever, yet is just a red herring to make you believe the game is far more clever than it is. They are the Donald Trump of boardgames. A bunch of show to conceal the fact that they may hold public sway, but are as deep as a kiddie pool.

This is why I don't buy or even play many new boardgames unless word of mouth from very trusted sources back up their quality after a period of time after the hype dies.

If I ever play Arkham with all expansions and the Expansion-expansion again I’m going to peel my skin off with a rake and leap into the nearest dimensional portal to escape.

That experience was so horrible I can’t look at Eldritch Horror in the store without feeling self loathing, revulsion and rage. Years ago it would be unthinkable I wouldn’t buy a new AH, but here we are lol

Sagrilarus wrote: Believe it or not I've associated it emotionally with Nexus Ops, which is much simpler, much more straightforward, and much more fun. I appreciate that Nexus Ops is a whisper of a game compared to Scythe, but it has a spirit that Scythe didn't reveal when I played it. To some extent, Scythe feels like a game that's big for bigness' sake. I like some big games, games that seem to justify the biginess with a bigger play. But Scythe didn't hit me that way.

I still really like Scythe, but I definitely see what you're saying here and agree.

Except, of course, for the fact that Nexus Ops is all about the combat and Scythe is... not. But spiritually, I get it.

I don't think anybody's recommending Arkham with all the expansions at once. I think one or two at a time is plenty.

Actually, a lot of people played that way, and even came up with elaborate ways to combat card dilution. Sounds terrible to me. I only ever play with one expansion at a time to maximize the theme.

I love Arkham Horror with all the boards in play. It is absolutely reasonable to play with all the boards in play, and the final expansion-expansion supports that style of play with a lot of cards connecting the big box expansions to each other. That said, it's overwhelming if you also play with the game-ending threat of all of the big expansions. Pick one, like the Dunwich Horror or the rifts or Kingsport or the Deep One Uprising, and ignore the others. Or use the Act cards of the King in Yellow, instead of one of those big expansion threats. And also, don't play with the rifts anyway, because they offer more hassle than entertainment.

Also, there is at least one element in each of the big box expansions that makes one aspect of the game much better. The injury and madness cards from Dunwich should be mandatory. Final battle is significantly more entertaining with the Epic Battle cards of Kingsport. And the personal story cards from Innsmouth add to the sense of narrative and make the characters more interesting.

As for the small box expansions, you absolutely should NOT be playing with all of them at once. Each small box expansion has a threat driven by a Herald card, and you should only be playing with one Herald at the most.

Only once have I gone to the trouble of playing a game of Arkham Horror with just one specific expansion. It was a tedious process to remove all the cards, creatures, characters, etc. from the expansions that we weren't going to use, and took over an hour. If you want to play with a more focused theme, leave out some or all of the expansion boards and maybe use a herald. But don't bother removing all the other expansion materials, because that is a time-consuming project that takes directly away from your gaming time.

I played Ludi Gladiatori today.

I didn't actually know the game was published as we were playing a prototype, probably one that included an expansion or some sort of add-on. The designer explained the game and his work process and asked for feedback and, well, I felt a bit awkard.

I tried to give him some thoughts on the game's balance or some of the mechanics and I hope the best for him. But...it's not a good game. It's really not. And it's not a bad game, either, it's just one of those games that are so weak that you can't say anything about them. And when trying to give some feedback to the guy, I kept thinking about one phrase.

This is the kind of game that nobody would bother writing about.

You guys probably know about how much I hated Roll Player and how it offended me with its dullness. And there are guys who, for whatever reason, see something in the game and that are probably writing about how great it is. Well, I can't see anyone really caring enough about this game to do that. There's nothing there. The auction is not engaging. Combat has no tension and boils down to a card-based die where all cards work and the opponent doesn't get killed. There's some economic management, some card costs to pay and so on but they are workmanlike and not even worth mentioning.

But, of course, I cannot say that. I cannot tell that guy to his face "hey, your game is meaningless, it's not worth playing nor worth hating". There's no non-rude way to say that. I tried to mention that the auction wasn't very engaging but I could see it coming across as dimissive or the wrong kind of honest.

SO yeah, this is why I don't play prototypes. I actually didn't want to play, but I arrived late and it was the game that was on the table. And look, I appreciate the guy working on the game and being passionate about it. It is worth doing, even if I don't think the actual result is...well, interesting at all.

I dunno, Erik. I don't know the guy, but if I were him, I'd want to hear even the rudest slaps in the face of reality.

Mostly because I can take it and understand that it's just one person's opinion, but also because if I am wasting my precious time (which is quite precious) I would want to hear it.

Maybe I am a freakish outlier in that, because it seems not many people want to know what truth is, or deal with the pain that truth often has, but if my efforts sucked, I don't want adulation for a poor job done. I want to know if it sucks so I can do better.

For whatever that's worth.

Erik, I had a similar experience late last year, except that I knew the designer well from my old Jyhad group. He was very enthusiastically playtesting his prototype CCG about space empires battling for control of planets, but I just wasn't enjoying it. I did give some limited feedback, to the effect that the game seemed to lack interesting card combos, and the contestation of every duplicate planet made the game exponentially longer for each additional player. I did a total of four playtest games on two different nights, and didn't enjoy the game. But maybe the game is better now, since he has been doing an impressive amount of playtesting. Whether or not the game is good, he has gone all in on the development, and recruited some very decent local artists for card art.

I just think it would reflect more on me than on the game. Like it would be seen as me being a big contrarian or overly harsh, not the game being dull and me having a logical response to that. You don't see this level of criticism ever being leveled, much less in this kind of environment and I would come across like a dick. I mean, I'm already the local contrarian and I don't have the level of credibility to stand there without coming across poorly.

Call me a coward, but I didn't want to be the one guy who not only says his game sucks but that his whole concept for the game doesn't have much going for it. Which is actually important to hear, but yeah, I haven't had the best experiences with that kind of comments. I mean, a friend and I got a designer upset because we mentioned that being able to move, shoot and move back with every unit was extremely powerful and made it impossible to attack well. That's far tamer in comparison to "it's all wrong, do it all over again".

And I'm sure the guy would be a top act and take it well. But why risk it? I don't think my opinion would have been that valuable to him.

Shellhead wrote: But maybe the game is better now, since he has been doing an impressive amount of playtesting. Whether or not the game is good, he has gone all in on the development, and recruited some very decent local artists for card art.

Yeah, the issue here is that the core of the game is dull. He's working a lot on balance and testing and other minor changes and he has a very good grasp on the way games are actually played, and how players approach games and understand them but none of that will make the game more engaging, just more balanced.

And, hey, massive props to him. I truly have massive amounts of respect for anyone doing creative work, no matter how poorly. That's hard and I'm amazed when people do simple drawings or play songs on a musical instrument because it takes a lot of effort and skill to do it, no matter how poorly. But render unto Caesar's, his game is not good and cannot be good because there's no hook on it.

Shellhead wrote: Also, there is at least one element in each of the big box expansions that makes one aspect of the game much better. The injury and madness cards from Dunwich should be mandatory. Final battle is significantly more entertaining with the Epic Battle cards of Kingsport. And the personal story cards from Innsmouth add to the sense of narrative and make the characters more interesting.

I actually do use all that stuff.

Shellhead wrote: Only once have I gone to the trouble of playing a game of Arkham Horror with just one specific expansion. It was a tedious process to remove all the cards, creatures, characters, etc. from the expansions that we weren't going to use, and took over an hour.

I keep everything separate in the first place, so I only ever have one set of cards to remove. I don't mind it at all.

If I was playtesting a game, I want the good and the bad. In full, untruncated. Kissing my ass and being nice doesn’t stop me from continuing down the wrong path.

That’s my 2c.

When I was running my cheesecake place, and anytime I am cooking for a group of people, you learn more from the negatives than the positives. In cooking at least, I don't necessarily want to hear everyone say that the dish was fine of just that they liked it, I would like to know how things could be improved, elements edited, or aspects changed entirely. In many cases, those critiques echo what I am already thinking in my head. I think this general mindset can apply to any creative endeavor.

Game creators going to play testers are not unlike an author going to a peer review or editor and need to be prepared to wholly scrap ideas if they are not working. Not being honest to someone asking for feedback doesn't help anyone.

I once pulled the plug on a playtest of my game after just a few turns. Some basic assumptions that I made about the player interaction didn't pan out, and I had seen enough to know what wasn't working. I encouraged all of the players to email me with comments later, but only one of them did so. I still have that email, because it had some very useful observations about what was and wasn't working in my game, as well as a couple of useful general observations about games of that sort that did work.